The Purpose Of This Modification Is To (1) Provide Incremental Funding In The Amount Of: Fill & Download for Free

All right, so your daughter is in my class, okay? High school English. Let’s say she’s a sophomore.You expect me to prepare your child to be ready for either college or a career when she gets out of high school, right? That’s my job. I’m supposed to teach her how to read and write to prepare her for that.How will any of us know that I’m doing that? Or that she’s performing at a level of proficiency that shows she’s ready for that?That’s what standards do.Standards don’t tell me as a teacher that I have to teach Huck Finn or Animal Farm. They simply lay out standardized skills and content and explain what proficiency in those skills and content look like.As a teacher, I had tons of freedom to decide what texts, what units, what projects, what lessons, what instructional strategies I wanted to use to get your daughter to those levels.Let’s say a standard says this: “Students can analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters, and advance the plot or develop the theme.”[1]I could do this with a lot of literature. I might choose to have the students read Shakespeare’s Othello. Whooo boy are there some complex characters with multiple and conflicting motivations, and some incredibly dynamic interactions with other characters to advance the plot! Themes of revenge, of broken marital trust, all sorts of awesome stuff. Dirty jokes abound that would get me fired if the students actually understood them, but hey, classic text, right?Your daughter could show me her ability to analyze all of that in lots of different ways. She could draft a poster. Write a paper. Illustrate a graphic novel or make her own film adaptation. Those are just a few ideas. I have lots of freedom to give her assignments. I could give her lots of freedom to choose those assignments.The standards tell me (and her) what skills she needs to have and at what level she needs to show me she can meet those standards.Now, let’s say you get a new job towards the end of your daughter’s sophomore year. Your company is downsizing and transferring you from Wisconsin to North Carolina. It’s a bummer for her, leaving all her friends and all. But, you have to go.What happens to her education when she gets to North Carolina, and all of the sudden, the standards are all really different?She gets to school and finds out that in Wisconsin, she had to do geometry and algebra by the end of her sophomore year, but in North Carolina, she’s already supposed to have had trigonometry her sophomore year and her junior year, she’s supposed to do geometry, which she just took. She hasn’t taken trig yet. Does she get stuck with a bunch of sophomores in her new school when she’s a junior? Does she repeat geometry?What if North Carolina’s standards figure she’s supposed to have mastered a whole bunch of skills and concepts that Wisconsin doesn’t even have in their standards at all?And what if Wisconsin’s standards are aligned with local businesses and colleges, but North Carolina’s haven’t been revamped in twenty years and don’t address things like basic computer literacy?That’s a problem, right?That’s precisely where the Common Core Initiative came into play in the early 2000’s.A little history lesson is in order.In 2001, Congress re-authorized and amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or ESEA. You’ll better know that re-authorization as No Child Left Behind. (NCLB was replaced in 2016 with another re-authorization of the ESEA called the Every Student Succeeds Act.)One of the key focuses of NCLB was that it massively expanded the amount of data gathered by schools, through testing and through other means. This was compiled by the federal government and state governments, and was supposed to help teachers identify areas of proficiency and weakness for students. It tied funding to standardized testing, and required schools to make an adequate yearly progress (AYP) goal. Failure to meet the AYP meant massive loss of funds.But it also left all that testing development up to the states, and left it to the states to set their AYP goals.And it said nothing about standards. States could (and did) have wildly varying standards. Maryland required teaching trigonometry. Neighboring Virginia didn’t.A number of organizations were formed to help make sense of this sudden treasure trove of data. One of these was the Grow Network, founded by Rhodes Scholars David Coleman and Jason Zimba.One of the key problems they ran into was how to compare various states when the standards were completely different. Another key problem was that all of this data was still essentially useless in helping schools figure out how to get students successful for college and career readiness in the 21st century.The last major push to create standards had taken place in the late 60’s. They’d been amended piecemeal since, with one major reform push in the 80’s and 90’s, but other than adding some degree of technology skills, the patchwork set of standards from state to state were woefully out of date with modern career and college expectations and wildly different from state to state.And those standards were often so expansive that no teacher could possibly address all of them in a single year. So, teachers often had to pick and choose which ones to address, and had to focus on hitting as many as possible at relatively shallow levels of proficiency, rather than requiring deeper mastery of fewer essential standards.The standards also tended to be rather vague. The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards were still in use when I was in undergrad. We spent several weeks of one of my courses during my Methods of Teaching semester (five classes taken simultaneously that had an intensive focus on how teach secondary ELA,) on just how to break down the standards and turn them into usable guidance.Coleman and Zimba aimed to fix all that.Their goal? Work with business and college leaders, educators, administrators, everyone who had a stake in public education, and develop a set of modernized standards that could be adopted everywhere. Not from a federal top-down mandate, but a grassroots state-led coalition.They started the Common Core State Standards Initiative in 2008, laying out an ambitious plan in an essay to the Carnegie Corporation for clearer, fewer, higher standards.They wanted to focus on real-world applications of literature, math, and science, and bake those right into the standards. What would the students have to do in college and careers? That was what should be in the standards. Practical work.Coleman and Zimba found that lots of people were interested in this idea. The Council of Chief State School Officers immediately signed on to be a part of it. The National Governors Association signed on in a wide rare moment of bipartisan support for the initiative, loving the state-led approach. Coleman flew to Seattle to pitch the idea to Bill and Melinda Gates for financing. Bill was immediately supportive of the idea, and proceeded to pour a great deal of funding into the initiative. Policy institutes ranging from the progressive Center for American Progress to the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce jumped in.Jeb Bush made it a central push of his education plan in Florida. Mike Huckabee was an early supporter and championed the standards as a way to improve education nationwide.Even the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, jumped on board and hailed the effort as “essential building blocks for a better education system.”Honestly, this looked like one of the first times when everyone was on board. Teachers. States. Businesses. Colleges. Everyone.Seriously, when was the last time the American Federation of Teachers and Mike Huckabee were on the same side of anything? That’s how much everyone involved thought this was a great idea.The people working on the initiative were hopeful that they could maybe get a dozen to fifteen states to sign on initially, if they were really lucky. They expected more like ten.More than thirty-five signed on almost immediately.Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education for the Obama Administration at the time, saw this as a golden opportunity to improve the failings of No Child Left Behind while working on a replacement law, and got Congress to authorize a big pot of money and No Child Left Behind waivers for states willing to adopt any set of new, updated standards that even resembled the new proposed Common Core. All but two of the remaining holdouts (Rick Perry in Texas, and Sarah Palin in Alaska) jumped on board to get the federal dollars and NCLB waivers.So, from 2008–2011, the Initiative worked to create draft standards, starting with mathematics and English/Language Arts. This was not done in secret or behind closed doors, but the nation kind of had some other things dominating the news cycles at the time.And in the meanwhile, the Tea Party, deeply mistrustful of all things federal, came to the national forefront.So, when states started enacting the new standards in 2011 and lots of federal dollars went to it, Tea Party Republicans lost their minds about it.Insane conspiracy theories spread like wildfire about these new standards, which from the Tea Party’s perspective seemed to apparently just arise from nowhere. They must be a secret George Soros project to indoctrinate children with liberal, progressive values! Any wacky or ill-conceived assignment became examples of “Common Core Curriculum.” (Again, remember - the standards don’t require of me as a teacher anything about curriculum such as lesson planning or assignments or projects.) Irate parents started yelling at school boards about the elimination of teaching cursive handwriting, even though no state required it in their standards prior to Common Core adoption.This literally became the issue that in 2012 unseated one of the most conservative Representatives in the House at the time, Eric Cantor of Virginia, who supported the standards.And that’s where we are today.I headed up CCSS implementation in several districts from 2012–2014. We spent a lot of time with our local CESA district (a regional school support organization in Wisconsin,) working on constructing curricula around the new standards.The first good thing about them is that there are simply fewer standards, and just make more sense than the old standards. They’re more workable and clear.For example, here’s the old Wisconsin Model Academic Standards from the pre-CCSS days. They only advance in requirements every four years of education; 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade. Here’s B12.2, on writing standards for high school seniors:B.12.2 Plan, revise, edit, and publish clear and effective writingWrite essays demonstrating the capacity to communicate knowledge, opinions, and insights to an intended audience through a clear thesis and effective organization of supporting ideasDevelop a composition through a series of drafts, using a revision strategy based on purpose and audience, personal style, self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses as a writer, and feedback from peers and teachersGiven a writing assignment to be completed in a limited amount of time, produce a well developed, well organized, clearly written response in effective language and a voice appropriate for audience and purposeNow, here’s a roughly equivalent standard from the Grade 12 ELA CCSS:CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.5Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. (Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of Language standards 1-3 up to and including grades 11-12 here.)The new standards for ELA (English/Language Arts) are bundled differently, but cover essentially all of the same ground. For example, the WMAS standard requires timed writing. The CCSS also require timed writing, but in a different standard section.The CCSS advance every year until high school, and then 9–10 and 11–12 are joined, unlike the WMAS, which advanced every four years (in conjunction with the grades when students were required to take the standardized tests.) The CCSS build skills more progressively and provide a clearer, more incremental road map for students and teachers to follow as a result.The language is clear enough that with minor modification, I was able to make them into learning targets specifically for my students and their parents to have for each unit, so they could see precisely what we were supposed to be learning and at what level they were expected to do it.Our department replaced a few older texts with newer ones and shifted a few around. Romeo and Juliet got moved to freshmen from sophomore English. Huck Finn got ditched mostly because students just hated reading it. We replaced it with a unit of literature circles where students got to read a novel of their choice from among five selections, such as The Bluest Eye and A Lesson Before Dying.We added a sweet biotech research unit to the sophomore curriculum. The students got to debate the Bill of Rights in their junior year.All of that met the new Core Standards. None of that content was mandated by them.One difference in the new standards was a push for more “informational literacy,” not just non-fiction, but texts like scientific or technical writing: the kinds of things students might see in a college or workplace setting. This was designed to be spread out over the entire core disciplinary areas; ELA would be integrated into science, mathematics, social studies. Students would finally see how content areas and disciplines overlapped, particularly literacy and writing.This was a big part of my job when I taught, heading up cross-disciplinary literacy integration around the district. I worked with elementary and secondary educators to incorporate reading and writing skills as part of their science, mathematics, social studies, history, even art and music coursework. Students got used to seeing standardized writing rubrics across all their classes.This was not originally welcomed with open arms by my colleagues, who were afraid it would add to their already overflowing plates. But, with a little help, it didn’t take long before most of my colleagues saw the value in it and I tried to make it as little extra effort as possible to augment their existing work without just creating more of it. Most of that work centered around providing standardized writing rubrics, having the other educators reinforce what we were already teaching in the ELA classroom, and making sure the students used the same reading strategies everywhere.This has already led to improved results across the board. When students are able to apply the same reading, research, and writing skills from ELA in the STEM classrooms and social sciences, their ability to digest and retain that information is greater. They have a greater understanding how to pick apart a technical manual or draft an effective lab report that others can understand. When their ability to communicate effectively improves, so does their ability to more rapidly pick up other skills and content knowledge. It’s a positive snowball effect that promotes good, lifelong learners.That’s one of those new concepts that came with Common Core. Educational researchers had been telling us this for a long time. The new standards made it part of the classroom.The Standards are just a good way for all of the various states to be on the same page for all of our students, and to have 21st century standards that will prepare our students better for life outside of elementary and secondary education.They are not scary. They are not ideological liberal commie cooties or mandatory indoctrination. They are not a federal takeover of education. They do not kill Mark Twain. They do not require funky math.They’re just better versions of what we already had.Thanks for the A2A, Brian McDermott.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.Footnotes[1] English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Literature " Grade 9-10

I made this last year i think it covers most bitcoin terms.AddressBitcoin address is a Base58Check representation of a Hash160 of a public key with a version byte 0x00 which maps to a prefix “1”. Typically represented as text (ex. 1CBtcGivXmHQ8ZqdPgeMfcpQNJrqTrSAcG) or as a QR code.A more recent variant of an address is a P2SHaddress: a hash of a spending script with a version byte 0x05 which maps to a prefix “3” (ex. 3NukJ6fYZJ5Kk8bPjycAnruZkE5Q7UW7i8).Another variant of an address is not a hash, but a raw private key representation (e.g. 5KQntKuhYWSRXNqp2yhdXzjekYAR7US3MT1715Mbv5CyUKV6hVe). It is rarely used, only for importing/exporting private keys or printing them on paper wallets.AltcoinA clone of the protocol with some modifications. Usually all altcoins have rules incompatible with Bitcoin and have their own genesis blocks. Most notable altcoins are Litecoin (uses faster block confirmation time and scrypt as a proof-of-work) and Namecoin (has a special key-value storage). In theory, an altcoin can be started from an existing Bitcoin blockchain if someone wants to support a different set of rules (although, there was no such example to date). See alsoFork.ASICStands for “application-specific integrated circuit”. In other words, a chip designed to perform a narrow set of tasks (compared to CPU or GPU that perform a wide range of functions). ASIC typically refers to specialized mining chips or the whole machines built on these chips. Some ASIC manufacturers: Avalon, ASICMiner, Butterfly Labs (BFL) and Cointerra.ASICMinerA Chinese manufacturer that makes custom mining hardware, sells shares for bitcoins, pays dividends from on-site mining and also ships actual hardware to customers.Base58A compact human-readable encoding for binary data invented by Satoshi Nakamoto to make more user-friendlyaddresses. It consists of alphanumeric characters, but does not allow “0”, “O”, “I”, “l” characters that look the same in some fonts and could be used to create visually identical looking addresses. Lowercase “o” and “1” are allowed.Base58CheckA variant of Base58 encoding that appends first 4 bytes of Hash256 of the encoded data to that data before converting to Base58. It is used in addressesto detect typing errors.BIPBitcoin Improvement Proposals. RFC-like documents modeled after PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals) discussing different aspects of the protocol and software. Most interesting BIPs describe hard fork changes in the core protocol that require supermajority of Bitcoin users (or, in some cases, only miners) to agree on the change and accept it in an organized manner.BitName of a Bitcoin denomination equal to 100 satoshis (1 millionth of 1 BTC). In 2014 several companies including Bitpay and Coinbase, and various wallet apps adopted bit to display bitcoin amounts.BitcoinRefers to a protocol, network or a unit of currency.As a protocol, Bitcoin is a set of rules that every client must follow to accept transactions and have its own transactions accepted by other clients. Also includes a message protocol that allows nodes to connect to each other and exchangetransactionsand blocks.As a network, Bitcoin is all the computers that follow the same rules and exchange transactions and blocks between each other.As a unit, one Bitcoin (BTC, XBT) is defined as 100 million satoshis, the smallest units available in the current transaction format. Bitcoin is not capitalized when speaking about the amount: “I received 0.4 bitcoins.”BitcoinBitcoin CoreNew name of BitcoinQT since release of version 0.9 on March 19, 2014. Not to confuse with CoreBitcoin, an Objective-C implementation published in August 2013. See also Bitcore, a JavaScript implementation for Node.js by Bitpay.BitcoinjA Java implementation of a full Bitcoin node by Mike Hearn. Also includes SPV implementation among other features.BitcoinjsA JavaScript Bitcoin library. Allows singing transactions and performing several elliptic curve operations. Used onhttp://brainwallet.org. See also Bitcore, another JS library.BitcoinQTBitcoin implementation based on original code by Satoshi Nakamoto. Includes a graphical interface for Windows, OS X and Linux (using QT) and a command-line executable bitcoind that is typically used on servers.It is considered a reference implementation as it’s the most used full node implementation, especially among miners. Other implementations must be bug-for-bug compatible with it to avoid being forked. BitcoinQT uses OpenSSL for its ECDSA operations which has its own quirks that became a part of the standard (e.g. non-canonically encoded public keys are accepted by OpenSSL without an error, so other implementations must do the same).BitcoindOriginal implementation of Bitcoin with a command line interface. Currently a part of BitcoinQT project. “D” stands for “daemon” per UNIX tradition to name processes running in background. See also BitcoinQT.Bitcoin-rubyA Bitcoin utilities library in Ruby by Julian Langschaedel. Used in production on Buy/Sell Digital Currency - Coinbase.BitcoreA Bitcoin toolkit by Bitpay written in JavaScript. More complete than Bitcoinjs.BlockA data structure that consists of a block header and a merkle tree of transactions. Each block (except for genesis block) references one previous block thus forming a tree called the blockchain. Block can be though of as a group of transactions with a timestamp and a proof-of-work attached.Block HeaderA data structure containing a previous block hash, a hash of a merkle tree of transactions, a timestamp, a difficulty and anonce.Block HeightA sequence number of a block in the blockchain. Height 0 refers to the genesis block. Several blocks may share the same height (see Orphan), but only one of them belongs to the main chain. Block height is used in Lock time.BlockchainA public ledger of all confirmed transactions in a form of a tree of all valid blocks (including orphans). Most of the time, “blockchain” means the main chain, a single most difficult chain of blocks. Blockchain is updated by mining blocks with new transactions. Unconfirmed transactions are not part of the blockchain. If some clients disagree on which chain is main or which blocks are valid, a forkhappens.Bitcoin Block Explorer - BlockchainA web service running a Bitcoin node and displaying statistics and raw data of all the transactions and blocks. It also provides a web wallet functionality with lightweight clients for Android, iOS and OS X.Brain walletBrain wallet is a concept of storing private keys as a memorable phrase without any digital or paper trace. Either a single key is used for a single address, or a deterministic wallet derived from a single key. If done properly, a brain wallet greatly reduces the risk of theft because it is completely deniable: no one could say which or how much bitcoins you own as there are no actual wallet files to be found anywhere. However, it is the most error-prone method as one can simply forget the secret phrase, or make it too simple for anyone to brute force and steal all the funds. Additional risks are added by a complex wallet software. E.g. BitcoinQT always sends change amount to a new address. If a private key is imported temporarily to spend 1% of the funds and then the wallet is deleted, the remaining 99% will be lost forever as they are moved as a change to a completely new address. This already happened to a number of people.http://Brainwallet.orgUtility based on bitcoinjs to craft transactions by hand, convert private keys to addresses and work with a brain wallet.BTCThe most popular informal currency code for 1 Bitcoin (defined as 100 000 000 Satoshis). See also XBT and Bit.Casascius CoinsPhysical collectible coins produced by Mike Caldwell. Each coin contains a private key under a tamper-evident hologram. The name “Casascius” is formed from a phrase “call a spade a spade”, as a response to a name of Bitcoin itself.ChangeInformal name for a portion of a transaction outputthat is returned to a sender as a “change” after spending that output. Since transaction outputscannot be partially spent, one can spend 1 BTC out of 3 BTC output only be creating two new outputs: a “payment” output with 1 BTC sent to a payee address, and a “change” output with remaining 2 BTC (minustransaction fees) sent to the payer’s addresses. BitcoinQT always uses new address from a key pool for a better privacy.Bitcoin Block Explorer - Blockchain sends to a default address in the wallet.A common mistake when working with a paper wallet or a brain wallet is to make a change transaction to a different address and then accidentally delete it. E.g. when importing a private key in a temporary BitcoinQT wallet, making a transaction and then deleting the temporary wallet.CheckpointA hash of a block before which the BitcoinQT client downloads blocks without verifying digital signatures for performance reasons. A checkpoint usually refers to a very deep block (at least several days old) when it’s clear to everyone that that block is accepted by the overwhelming majority of users and reorganization will not happen past that point.It also helps protecting most of the history from a 51% attack. Since checkpoints affect how the main chain is determined, they are part of the protocol and must be recognized by alternative clients (although, the risk of reorganization past the checkpoint would be incredibly low).ClientSee Node.CoinAn informal term that means either 1 bitcoin, or an unspent transaction output that can be spent.CoinbaseAn input script of a transaction that generates new bitcoins. Or a name of that transaction itself (“coinbase transaction”). Coinbase transaction does not spend any existing transactions, but contains exactly one input which may contain any data in its script. Genesis block transaction contains a reference to The Times article from January 3rd 2009 to prove that more blocks were not created before that date. Some mining pools put their names in the coinbase transactions (so everyone can estimate how much hashrate each pool produces).Coinbase is also used to vote on a protocol change (e.g. P2SH). Miners vote by putting some agreed-upon marker in the coinbase to see how many support the change. If a majority of miners support it and expect non-mining users to accept it, then they simply start enforcing new rule. Minority then should either continue with a forked blockchain (thus producing an altcoin) or accept new rule.Buy/Sell Digital Currency - CoinbaseUS-based Bitcoin/USD exchange and web wallet service.Colored CoinA concept of adding a special meaning to certain transaction outputs. This could be used to create a tradable commodity on top of Bitcoin protocol. For instance, a company may create 1 million shares and declare a single transaction output containing 10 BTC (1 bln satoshis) as a source of these shares. Then, some or all of these bitcoins can be moved to other addresses, sold or exchanged for anything. During a voting process or a dividend distribution, share owners can prove ownership by simply singing a particular message by the private keys associated with addresses holding bitcoins derived from the initial source.Cold StorageA collective term for various security measures to reduce the risk of remote access to the private keys. It could be a normal computer disconnected from the internet, or a dedicated hardware wallet, or a USB stick with a wallet file, or apaper wallet.CompactSizeOriginal name of a variable-length integer format used in transaction and block serialization. Also known as “Satoshi’s encoding”. It uses 1, 3, 5 or 9 bytes to represent any 64-bit unsigned integer. Values lower than 253 are represented with 1 byte. Bytes 253, 254 and 255 indicate 16-, 32- or 64-bit integer that follows. Smaller numbers can be presented differently. In bitcoin-ruby it is called “var_int”, in Bitcoinj it is VarInt. BitcoinQT also has even more compact representation called VarInt which is not compatible with CompactSize and used in block storage.Confirmed TransactionTransaction that has been included in the blockchain. Probability of transaction being rejected is measured in a number of confirmations. See Confirmation Number.Confirmation NumberConfirmation number is a measure of probability that transaction could be rejected from the main chain. “Zero confirmations” means that transaction is unconfirmed (not in any block yet). One confirmation means that the transaction is included in the latest block in the main chain. Two confirmations means the transaction is included in the block right before the latest one. And so on. Probability of transaction being reversed (“double spent”) is diminishing exponentially with more blocks added “on top” of it.DifficultyDifficulty is a measure of how difficult it is to find a new block compared to the easiest it can ever be. By definition, it is a maximum target divided by the current target. Difficulty is used in two Bitcoin rules: 1) every block must be meet difficulty target to ensure 10 minute interval between blocks and 2) transactions are considered confirmed only when belonging to a main chain which is the one with the biggest cumulative difficulty of all blocks. As of July 27, 2014 the difficulty is 18 736 441 558 and grows by 3-5% every two weeks. See also Target.Denial of ServiceIs a form of attack on the network. Bitcoin nodespunish certain behavior of other nodes by banning their IP addresses for 24 hours to avoid DoS. Also, some theoretical attacks like 51% attack may be used for network-wide DoS.DepthDepth refers to a place in the blockchain. A transaction with 6 confirmations can also be called “6 blocks deep”.Deterministic WalletA collective term for different ways to generate a sequence of private keys and/or public keys. Deterministic wallet does not need a Key Pool. The simplest form of a deterministic wallet is based on hashing a secret string concatenated with a key number. For each number the resulting hash is used as a private key (public key is derived from it). More complex scheme uses elliptic curve arithmeticto derive sequences of public and private keys separately which allows generating new addressesfor every payment request without storing private keys on a web server.DoSSee Denial of Service.Double SpendA fraudulent attempt to spend the same transaction output twice. There are two major ways to perform a double spend: reverting an unconfirmed transaction by making another one which has a higher chance of being included in a block (only works with merchants accepting zero-confirmation transactions) or by mining a parallel blockchain with a second transaction to overtake the chain where the first transaction was included.Bitcoin proof-of-work scheme makes a probabilistic guarantee of difficulty to double spend transactions included in theblockchain. The deeper transaction is recorded in the blockchain, the more expensive it is to “reverse” it. See also 51% attack.DustA transaction output that is smaller than a typically fee required to spend it. This is not a strict part of the protocol, as any amount more than zero is valid. BitcoinQT refuses to mine or relay “dust” transactions to avoid uselessly increasing the size of unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) index. See also discussion about UTXO.ECDSAStands for Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm. Used to verify transaction ownership when making a transfer of bitcoins. See Signature.Elliptic Curve ArithmeticA set of mathematical operations defined on a group of points on a 2D elliptic curve. Bitcoin protocol uses predefined curve secp256k1. Here’s the simplest possible explanation of the operations: you can add and subtract points and multiply them by an integer. Dividing by an integer is computationally infeasible (otherwise cryptographic signatures won’t work). The private key is a 256-bit integer and the public key is a product of a predefined point G (“generator”) by that integer: A = G * a. Associativity law allows implementing interesting cryptographic schemes like Diffie-Hellman key exchange (ECDH): two parties with private keys a and b may exchange their public keys A and B to compute a shared secret point C: C = A * b = B * a because (G * a) * b == (G * b) * a. Then this point C can be used as an AES encryption key to protect their communication channel.Extra nonceA number placed in coinbase script and incremented by a miner each time the nonce 32-bit integer overflows. This is not the required way to continue mining when nonce overflows, one can also change the merkle tree of transactions or change a public key used for collecting a block reward. See also nonce.FeeSee Transaction Fee.ForkRefers either to a fork of a source code (see Altcoin) or, more often, to a split of the blockchain when two different parts of the network see different main chains. In a sense, fork occurs every time two blocks of the same height are created at the same time. Both blocks always have the different hashes (and therefore different difficulty), so when a node sees both of them, it will always choose the most difficult one. However, before both blocks arrive to a majority of nodes, two parts of the network will see different blocks as tips of the main chain.Term fork or hard fork also refers to a change of the protocol that may lead to a split of the network (by design or because of a bug). On March 11 2013 a smaller half of the network running version 0.7 of bitcoind could not include a large (>900 Kb) block at height 225430 created by a miner running newer version 0.8. The block could not be included because of the bug in v0.7 which was fixed in v0.8. Since the majority of computing power did not have a problem, it continued to build a chain on top of a problematic block. When the issue was noticed, majority of 0.8 miners agreed to abandon 24 blocks incompatible with 0.7 miners and mine on top of 0.7 chain. Except for one double spend experiment against OKPay, all transactions during the fork were properly included in both sides of the blockchain.Full NodeA node which implements all of Bitcoin protocol and does not require trusting any external service to validate transactions. It is able to download and validate the entire blockchain. All full nodes implement the same peer-to-peer messaging protocol to exchange transactions and blocks, but that is not a requirement. A full node may receive and validate data using any protocol and from any source. However, the highest security is achieved by being able to communicate as fast as possible with as many nodes as possible.Genesis BlockA very first block in the blockchain with hard-coded contents and a all-zero reference to a previous block. Genesis block was released on 3rd of January 2009 with a newspaper quote in its coinbase: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks” as a proof that there are no secretly pre-mined blocks to overtake the blockchain in the future. The message ironically refers to a reason for Bitcoin existence: a constant inflation of money supply by governments and banks.HalvingRefers to reducing reward every 210 000 blocks (approximately every 4 years). Since the genesis block to a block 209999 in December 2012 the reward was 50 BTC. Till 2016 it will be 25 BTC, then 12.5 BTC and so on till 1 satoshiaround 2140 after which point no more bitcoins will ever be created. Due to reward halving, the total supply of bitcoins is limited: only about 2100 trillion satoshis will ever be created.Hard ForkSome people use term hard fork to stress that changing Bitcoin protocol requires overwhelming majority to agree with it, or some noticeable part of the economy will continue with original blockchain following the old rules. See Fork and Soft Fork for further discussion.Hash FunctionBitcoin protocol mostly uses two cryptographic hash functions: SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160. First one is almost exclusively used in the two round hashing (Hash256), while the latter one is only used in computing an address (see alsoHash160). Scriptsmay use not only Hash256 and Hash160, but also SHA-1, SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160.Hash, Hash256When not speaking about arbitrary hash functions, Hash refers to two rounds of SHA-256. That is, you should compute a SHA-256 hash of your data and then another SHA-256 hash of that hash. It is used in block header hashing, transactionhashing, making a merkle tree of transactions, or computing a checksum of an address. Known as BTCHash256() in CoreBitcoin, Hash() in BitcoinQT. It is also available in scripts as OP_HASH256.Hash160SHA-256 hashed with RIPEMD-160. It is used to produce an address because it makes a smaller hash (20 bytes vs 32 bytes) than SHA-256, but still uses SHA-256 internally for security. BTCHash160() in CoreBitcoin, Hash160() in BitcoinQT. It is also available in scripts as OP_HASH160.To hashTo compute a hash function of some data. If hash function is not mentioned explicitly, it is the one defined by the context. For instance, “to hash a transaction” means to compute Hash256 of binary representation of a transaction.HashrateA measure of mining hardware performance expressed in hashes per second (GH/s). As of July 27, 2014 the hash rate of all Bitcoin mining nodes combined is around 135 799 000 GH/s. For comparison, AMD Radeon graphics cards produce from 0.2 to 0.8 GH/s depending on model.Hash Type (hashtype)A single byte appended to a transaction signaturein the transaction input which describes how the transaction should be hashed in order to verify that signature. There are three types affecting outputs: ALL (default), SINGLE, NONE and one optional modifier ANYONECANPAY affecting the inputs (can be combined with either of the first three). ALL requires all outputs to be hashed (thus, all outputs are signed). SINGLE clears all output scripts but the one with the same index as the input in question. NONE clears all outputs thus allowing changing them at will. ANYONECANPAY removes all inputs except the current one (allows anyone to contribute independently). The actual behavior is more subtle than this overview, you should check the actual source code for more comments.HeightSee Block Height.InputSee Transaction Input.KeyCould mean an ECDSA public or private key, or AES symmetric encryption key. AES is not used in the protocol itself (only to encrypt the ECDSA keys and other sensitive data), so usually the word keymeans an ECDSA key. When talking about keys, people usually mean private keys as public key can always be derived from a private one. See also Private Key and Public Key.Key PoolSome wallet applications that create new private keys randomly keep a pool of unused pre-generated keys (BitcoinQT keeps 100 keys by default). When a new key is needed for changeaddress or a new payment request, the application provides the oldest key from the pool and replaces it with a fresh one. The purpose of the pool is to ensure that recently used keys are always already backed up on external storage. Without a key pool you could create a new key, receive a payment on its address and then have your hard disk died before backing up this key. A key pool guarantees that this key was already backed up several days before being used. Deterministic wallets do not use a key pool because they need to back up a single secret key.Lightweight clientComparing to a full node, lightweight node does not store the whole blockchain and thus cannot fully verify any transaction. There are two kinds of lightweight nodes: those fully trusting an external service to determine wallet balance and validity of transactions (e.g. Bitcoin Block Explorer - Blockchain) and the apps implementing Simplified Payment Verification(SPV). SPV clients do not need to trust any particular service, but are more vulnerable to a 51% attack than full nodes. See Simplified Payment Verification for more info.Lock Time (locktime)A 32-bit field in a transaction that means either a block height at which the transaction becomes valid, or a UNIX timestamp. Zero means transaction is valid in any block. A number less than 500000000 is interpreted as a block number (the limit will be hit after year 11000), otherwise a timestamp.MainnetMain Bitcoin network and its blockchain. The term is mostly used in comparison to testnet.Main ChainA part of the blockchain which a node considers the most difficult (see difficulty). All nodes store all valid blocks, includingorphans and recompute the total difficulty when receiving another block. If the newly arrived block or blocks do not extend existing main chain, but create another one from some previous block, it is called reorganization.Merkle TreeMerkle tree is an abstract data structure that organizes a list of data items in a tree of their hashes (like in Git, Mercurial or ZFS). In Bitcoin the merkle tree is used only to organize transactions within a block (the block header contains only one hash of a tree) so that full nodes may prune fully spent transactions to save disk space. SPV clients store only block headers and validate transactions if they are provided with a list of all intermediate hashes.MempoolA technical term for a collection of unconfirmed transactions stored by a node until they either expire or get included in the main chain. When reorganization happens, transactions from orphaned blocks either become invalid (if already included in the main chain) or moved to a pool of unconfirmed transactions. By default, bitcoindnodes throw away unconfirmed transactions after 24 hours.MiningA process of finding valid hashes of a block header by iterating millions of variants of block headers (using nonce andextra nonce) in order to find a hash lower than the target (see also difficulty). The process needs to determine a single global history of all transactions (grouped in blocks). Mining consumes time and electricity and nowadays the difficulty is so big, that energy-wise it’s not even profitable to mine using video graphics cards. Mining is paid for by transaction feesand by block rewards (newly generated coins, hence the term “mining”).Mining PoolA service that allows separate owners of mining hardware to split the reward proportionally to submitted work. Since probability of finding a valid block hash is proportional to miner’s hashrate, small individual miners may work for months before finding a big per-block reward. Mining pools allow more steady stream of smaller income. Pool owner determines the block contents and distributes ranges of nonce values between its workers. Normally, mining pools are centralized. P2Pool is a fully decentralized pool.MinerA person, a software or a hardware that performs mining.MixingA process of exchanging coins with other persons in order to increase privacy of one’s history. Sometimes it is associated with money laundering, but strictly speaking it is orthogonal to laundering. In traditional banking, a bank protects customer’s privacy by hiding transactions from all 3rd parties. In Bitcoin any merchant may do a statistical analysis of one’s entire payment history and determine, for instance, how many bitcoins one owns. While it’s still possible to implement KYC (Know You Customer) rules on a level of every merchant, mixing allows to to separate information about one’s history between the merchants.Most important use cases for mixing are: 1) receiving a salary as a single big monthly payment and then spending it in small transactions (“cafe sees thousands of dollars when you pay just $4”); 2) making a single payment and revealing connection of many small private spendings (“car dealer sees how much you are addicted to coffee”). In both cases your employer, a cafe and a car dealer may comply with KYC/AML laws and report your identity and transferred amounts, but neither of them need to know about each other. Mixing bitcoins after receiving a salary and mixing them before making a big payment solves this privacy problem.M-of-N Multi-signature TransactionA transaction that can be spent using M signatures when N public keys are required (M is less or equal to N). Multi-signature transactions that only contain one OP_CHECKMULTISIG opcode and N is 3, 2 or 1 are considered standard.NodeNode, or client, is a computer on the network that speaks Bitcoin message protocol (exchanging transactions and blocks). There are full nodes that are capable of validating the entire blockchain and lightweight nodes, with reduced functionality. Wallet applications that speak to a server are not considered nodes.NonceStands for “number used once”. A 32-bit number in a block header which is iterated during a search for proof-of-work. Each time the nonce is changed, the hash of the block header is recalculated. If nonce overflows before valid proof-of-work is found, an extra nonce is incremented and placed in the coinbase script. Alternatively, one may change a merkle tree of transactions or a timestamp.Non-standard TransactionAny valid transaction that is not standard. Non-standard transactions are not relayed or mined by default BitcoinQTnodes (but are relayed and mined on testnet). However, if anyone puts such transaction in a block, it will be accepted by all nodes. In practice it means that unusual transactions will take more time to get included in the blockchain. If some kind of non-standard transaction becomes useful and popular, it may get named standard and adopted by users (like it ). See also Standard Transaction.Opcode8-bit code of a script operation. Codes from 0x01 to 0x4B (decimal 75) are interpreted as a length of data to be pushed on the stack of the interpreter (data bytes follow the opcode). Other codes are either do something interesting, or disabled and cause transaction verification to fail, or do nothing (reserved for future use). See also Script.Orphan, Orphaned BlockA valid block that is no longer a part of a main chain. Usually happens when two or more blocks of the same height are produced at the same time. When one of them becomes a part of the main chain, others are considered “orphaned”. Orphans also may happen when the blockchain is forkeddue to an attack (see 51% attack) or a bug. Then a chain of several blocks may become abandoned. Usually a transaction is included in all blocks of the same height, so itsconfirmation is not delayed and there is no double spend. See also Fork.OutputSee Transaction Output.P2SHSee Pay-to-Script Hash.Pay-to-Script HashA type of the script and address that allows sending bitcoins to arbitrary complex scripts using a compact hash of that script. This allows payer to pay much smaller transaction fees and not wait very long for a non-standard transaction to get included in the blockchain. Then the actual script matching the hash must be provided by the payee when redeeming the funds. P2SH addresses are encoded in Base58Check just like regular public keys and start with number “3”.Paper WalletA form of cold storage where a private key for Bitcoin address is printed on a piece of paper (with or without encryption) and then all traces of the key are removed from the computer where it was generated. To redeem bitcoins, a key must be imported in the wallet application so it can sign a transaction. See also Casascius Coins.Proof-of-Work (PoW)A number that is provably hard to compute. That is, it takes measurable amount of time and/or computational power (energy) to produce. In Bitcoin it is a hash of a block header. A block is considered valid only if its hash is lower than the current target (roughly, starts with a certain amount of zero bits). Each block refers to a previous block thus accumulating previous proof-of-work and forming a blockchain.Proof-of-work is not the only requirement, but an important one to make sure that it is economically infeasible to produce an alternative history of transactions with the same accumulated work. Each client can independently consider the most difficult chain of valid blocks as the “true” history of transactions, without need to trust any source that provides the blocks.Note that owning a very large amount of computational power does not override other rules enforced by every client. Ill-formed blocks or blocks containing invalid transactions are rejected no matter how difficult they were to produce.Private Key (Privkey)A 256-bit number used in ECDSA algorithm to create transaction signatures in order to prove ownership of certain amount of bitcoins. Can also be used in arbitrary elliptic curve arithmetic operations. Private keys are stored within walletapplications and are usually encrypted with a pass phrase. Private keys may be completely random (see Key Pool) or generated from a single secret number (“seed”). See also Deterministic Wallet.Public Key (Pubkey)A 2D point on an elliptic curve secp256k1 that is produced by multiplying a predefined “generator” point by a private key. Usually it is represented by a pair of 256-bit numbers (“uncompressed public key”), but can also be compressed to just one 256-bit number (at the slight expense of CPU time to decode an uncompressed number). A special hash of a public key is called address. Typical Bitcoin transactions contain public keys or addresses in the output scripts and signatures in the input scripts.Reference ImplementationBitcoinQT (or bitcoind) is the most used full nodeimplementation, so it is considered a reference for other implementations. If an alternative implementation is not compatible with BitcoinQT it may be forked, that is it will not see the same main chain as the rest of the network running BitcoinQT.Relaying TransactionsConnected Bitcoin nodes relay new transactions between each other on best effort basis in order to send them to themining nodes. Some transactions may not be relayed by all nodes. E.g. non-standardtransactions, or transactions without a minimum fee. Bitcoin message protocol is not the only way to send the transaction. One may also send it directly to a miner, or mine it yourself, or send it directly to the payee and make them to relay or mine it.Reorg, ReorganizationAn event in the node when one or more blocks in the main chain become orphaned. Usually, newly received blocks are extending existing main chain. Sometimes (4-6 times a week) a couple of blocks of the same height are produced almost simultaneously and for a short period of time some nodes may see one block as a tip of the main chain which will be eventually replaced by a more difficult block(s). Each transaction in the orphaned blocks either becomes invalid (if already included in the main chain block) or becomes unconfirmedand moved to the mempool. In case of a major bug or a 51% attack, reorganization may involve reorganizing more than one block.RewardAmount of newly generated bitcoins that a minermay claim in a new block. The first transaction in the block allows miner to claim currently allowed reward as well as all transaction fees from all transactions in the block. Reward is halved every 210 000 blocks, approximately every 4 years. As of July 27, 2014 the reward is 25 BTC (the first halving occurred in December 2012). For security reasons, rewards cannot be spent before 100 blocks built on top of the current block.SatoshiThe first name of the Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto and also the name of the smallest unit used in transactions. 1 bitcoin (BTC) is equal to 100 million satoshis.Satoshi NakamotoA pseudonym of an author of initial Bitcoin implementation. There are multitude of speculations on who and how many people worked on Bitcoin, of which nationality or age, but no one has any evidence to say anything definitive on that matter.ScriptA compact turing-incomplete programming language used in transaction inputs and outputs. Scripts are interpreted by a Forth-like stack machine: each operation manipulates data on the stack. Most scripts follow the standard pattern and verify the digital signature provided in the transaction input against a public key provided in the previous transaction’soutput. Both signatures and public keys are provided using scripts. Scripts may contain complex conditions, but can never change amounts being transferred. Amount is stored in a separate field in a transaction output.scriptSigOriginal name in bitcoind for a transaction inputscript. Typically, input scripts contain signatures to prove ownership of bitcoins sent by a previous transaction.scriptPubKeyOriginal name in bitcoind for a transaction outputscript. Typically, output scripts contain public keys(or their hashes; seeAddress) that allow only owner of a corresponding private key to redeem the bitcoins in the output.SequenceA 32-bit unsigned integer in a transaction input used to replace older version of a transaction by a newer one. Only used when locktime is not zero. Transaction is not considered valid until the sequence number is 0xFFFFFFFF. By default, the sequence is 0xFFFFFFFF.SignatureA sequence of bytes that proves that a piece of data is acknowledged by a person holding a certain public key. Bitcoin uses ECDSA for signing transactions. Amounts of bitcoins are sent through a chain of transactions: from one to another. Every transaction must provide a signature matching a public key defined in the previous transaction. This way only a proper owner a secret private keyassociated with a given public key can spend bitcoins further.Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)A scheme to validate transactions without storing the whole blockchain (only block headers) and without trusting any external service. Every transaction must be present with all its parent and sibling hashes in a merkle tree up to the root. SPV client trusts the most difficult chain of block headers and can validate if the transaction indeed belongs to a certain block header. Since SPV does not validate all transactions, a 51% attack may not only cause a double spend (like withfull nodes), but also make a completely invalid payment with bitcoins created from nowhere. However, this kind of attack is very costly and probably more expensive than a product in question. Bitcoinjlibrary implements SPV functionality.Secret keyEither the Private Key or an encryption key used in encrypted wallets. Bitcoin protocol does not use encryption anywhere, so secret key typically means a private key used for signing transactions.Soft ForkSometimes the soft fork refers to an important change of software behavior that is not a hard fork(e.g. changing mining fee policy). See also Hard Fork and Fork.SpamIncorrect peer-to-peer messages (like sending invalid transactions) may be considered a denial of service attack (seeDoS). Valid transactions sending very tiny amounts and/or having low mining feesare called Dust by some people. The protocol itself does not define which transactions are not worth relaying or mining, it’s a decision of every individual node. Any valid transaction in the blockchain must be accepted by the node if it wishes to accept the remaining blocks, so transaction censorship only means increased confirmation delays. Individual payees may also blacklist certain addresses (refuse to accept payments from some addresses), but that’s too easy to work around using mixing.Spent OutputA transaction output can be spent only once: when another valid transaction makes a reference to this output from its own input. When another transaction attempts to spend the same output, it will be rejected by the nodes already seeing the first transaction. Blockchain as a proof-of-workscheme allows every node to agree on which transaction was indeed the first one. The whole transaction is considered spent when all its outputs are spent.SplitA split of a blockchain. See Fork.SPVSee Simplified Payment Verification.Standard TransactionSome transactions are considered standard, meaning they are relayed and mined by most nodes. More complex transactions could be buggy or cause DoS attacks on the network, so they are considered non-standard and not relayed or mined by most nodes. Both standard and non-standard transactions are valid and once included in the blockchain, will be recognized by all nodes. Standard transactions are: 1) sending to a public key, 2) sending to an address, 3) sending to a P2SHaddress, 4) sending to M-of-N multi-signature transaction where N is 3 or less.TargetA 256-bit number that puts an upper limit for a block header hash to be valid. The lower the target is, the higher thedifficulty to find a valid hash. The maximum (easiest) target is 0x00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The difficulty and the target are adjusted every 2016 blocks (approx. 2 weeks) to keep interval between the blocks close to 10 minutes.TestnetA set of parameters used for testing a Bitcoin network. Testnet is like mainnet, but has a different genesis block (it was reset several times, the latest testnet is testnet3). Testnet uses slightly different address format to avoid confusion with main Bitcoin addresses and all nodes are relaying and mining non-standard transactions.Testnet3The latest version of testnet with another genesis block.TimestampUNIX timestamp is a standard representation of time as a number of seconds since January 1st 1970 GMT. Usually stored in a 32-bit signed integer.TransactionA chunk of binary data that describes how bitcoins are moved from one owner to another. Transactions are stored in theblockchain. Every transaction (except for coinbase transactions) has a reference to one or more previous transactions (inputs) and one or more rules on how to spend these bitcoins further (outputs). See Transaction Input and Transaction Output for more info.Transaction FeeAlso known as “miners’ fee”, an amount that an author of transaction pays to a miner who will include the transaction in a block. The fee is expressed as difference between the sum of all input amounts and a sum of all output amounts. Unlike traditional payment systems, miners do not explicitly require fees and most miners allow free transactions. All miners are competing between each other for the fees and all transactions are competing for a place in a block. There are soft rules encoded in most clients that define minimum fees per kilobyte to relay or mine a transaction (mostly to prevent DoS andspam). Typically, the fee affects the priority of a transaction. As of July 27, 2014 average fee per block is below 0.1 BTC. See also Reward.Transaction InputA part of a transaction that contains a reference to a previous transaction’s output and a script that can prove ownership of that output. The script usually contains a signature and thus called scriptSig. Inputs spend previous outputs completely. So if one needs to pay only a portion of some previous output, the transaction should include extra changeoutput that sends the remaining portion back to its owner (on the same or different address). Coinbase transactions contain only one input with a zeroed reference to a previous transaction and an arbitrary data in place of script.Transaction OutputAn output contains an amount to be sent and a script that allows further spending. The script typically contains a public key (or an address, a hash of a public key) and a signature verification opcode. Only an owner of a corresponding private key is able to create another transaction that sends that amount further to someone else. In every transaction, the sum of output amounts must be equal or less than a sum of all input amounts. See also Change.TxSee Transaction.TxinSee Transaction Input.TxoutSee Transaction Output.Unconfirmed TransactionTransaction that is not included in any block. Also known as “0-confirmation” transaction. Unconfirmed transactions arerelayed by the nodes and stay in their mempools. Unconfirmed transaction stays in the pool until the node decides to throw it away, finds it in the blockchain, or includes it in the blockchain itself (if it’s a miner). See also Confirmation Number.UTXO SetA collection of Unspent Transaction Outputs. Typically used in discussions on optimizing an ever-growing index oftransaction outputs that are not yet spent. The index is important to efficiently validate newly created transactions. Even if the rate of the new transactions remains constant, the time required to locate and verify unspent outputs grows.Possible technical solutions include more efficient indexing algorithms and a more performant hardware. BitcoinQT, for example, keeps only an index of outputs matching user’s keys and scans the entire blockchain when validating other transactions. A developer of one web wallet service mentioned that they maintain the entire index of UTXO and its size was around 100 Gb when the blockchain itself was only 8 Gb.Some people seek social methods to solve the problem. For instance, by refusing to relay or minetransactions that are considered dust (containing outputs smaller than a transaction fee required to mine/relay them).VarIntThis term may cause confusion as it means different formats in different Bitcoin implementations. See CompactSize for details.WalletAn application or a service that helps keeping private keys for signing transactions. Wallet does not keep bitcoins themselves (they are recorded in blockchain). “Storing bitcoins” usually means storing the keys.Web WalletA web service providing wallet functionality: ability to store, send and receive bitcoins. User has to trust counter-party to keep their bitcoins securely and ready to redeem at any time. It is very easy to build your own web wallet, so most of them were prone to hacks or outright fraud. The most secure and respected web wallet is Bitcoin Block Explorer - Blockchain. Online exchanges also provide wallet functionality, so they can also be considered web wallets. It is not recommended to store large amounts of bitcoins in a web wallet.XBTInformal currency code for 1 Bitcoin (defined as 100 000 000 Satoshis). Some people proposed using it for 0.01 Bitcoin to avoid confusion with BTC. There were rumors that Bloomberg tests XBT as a ticker for 1 Bitcoin, but currently there is only ticker XBTFUND for SecondMarket’s Bitcoin Investment Trust. See also BTC.0-Confirmation (Zero-Confirmation)See Unconfirmed Transaction and Confirmation Number.51% AttackAlso known as >50% attack or a double spendattack. An attacker can make a payment, wait till the merchant accepts some number of confirmations and provides the service, then starts mining a parallel chain of blocks starting with a block before the transaction. This parallel blockchain then includes another transaction that spends the same outputs on some other address. When the parallel chain becomes more difficult, it is considered a main chain by all nodes and the original transaction becomes invalid. Having more than a half of total hashrate guarantees possibility to overtake chain of any length, hence the name of an attack (strictly speaking, it is “more than 50%”, not 51%). Also, even 40% of hashrate allows making a double spend, but the chances are less than 100% and are diminishing exponentially with the number of confirmations that the merchant requires.This attack is considered theoretical as owning more than 50% of hashrate might be much more expensive than any gain from a double spend. Another variant of an attack is to disrupt the network by mining empty blocks, censoring all transactions. An attack can be mitigated by blacklisting blocks that most of “honest” miners consider abnormal. Under normal conditions, miners and mining pools do not censor blocks and transactions as it may diminish trust in Bitcoin and thus their own investments. 51% attack is also mitigated by using checkpoints that prevent reorganization past the certain block.

Yes, the perception that most scientists are on side with a man made climate crisis is false and based on fudged data. The fact is the author of this post and much of the public have misled about who and how many scientists doubt the anthropogenic global warming scare. Also, it is very important to see that science progress is not a popularity contest. Doubt and skeptics are the life blood of break through science."Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. HarvardI will list in detail THE MANY THOUSANDS of leading scientists using observational evidence to debunk the claim that there is any meaningful climate effect from human emissions of CO2. My list will give names and details from books, lectures, and published research of highly reputed scientists including many Nobel Laureates.I WILL BEGIN MY LIST WITH THE LECTURE OF A FAMOUS NOBEL LAUREATEIvar Giaever - Smashes The Global Warming/Climate Change HoaxNobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.·An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming· Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field· Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warmingD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United Stateshttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.ALSO, The evidence for at least the past two decades there has been a pause in any global warming yet an increase in human CO2 emissions. This evidence shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature which surely puts in doubt the science supporting the fear of a climate crisis from a too hot climate. Japan scientists are confident enough of the pause reality to go back to building coal fired power plants as are China (especially in Africa and India also.Global warming: Sun and waterHarold J BlaauwEnergy & Environment. Jun2017, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p468-483. 16p.First Published March 1, 2017 Research Articlehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17695276Article informationAbstractThis paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth's climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaverstärker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lüning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesMIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.""The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all."By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 1, 2017 12:27 PM with 0 commentsVia: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Image via The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzen suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist.Introduction:For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners. I will try in this brief article to explain why such claims are, in fact, evidence of the dishonesty of the alarmist position.The 97% meme:This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (this body, generally referred to as the IPCC is the body created by the UN to provide ‘authoritative’ assessments of manmade climate change) doesn’t agree with the claim.Despite the above, I am somewhat surprised that it was necessary to use the various shenanigans described above. Since this issue fully emerged in public almost 30 years ago (and was instantly incorporated into the catechism of political correctness), there has been a huge increase in government funding of the area, and the funding has been predicated on the premise of climate catastrophism. By now, most of the people working in this area have entered in response to this funding. Note that governments have essentially a monopoly over the funding in this area. I would expect that the recipients of this funding would feel obligated to support the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, opposition to this would be a suicidal career move for a young academic. Perhaps the studies simply needed to properly phrase their questions so as to achieve levels of agreement for alarm that would be large though perhaps not as large as was required for the 97% meme especially if the respondents are allowed anonymity.https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONAlan Reece Longhurst is a British-born Canadian oceanographer who invented the Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder,and is widely known for his contributions to the primary scientific literature, together with his numerous monographs, most notably the “Ecological Geography of the Sea”. He led an effort that produced the first estimate of global primary production in the oceans using satellite imagery, and also quantified vertical carbon flux through the planktonic ecosystem via the biological pump.[4]More recently, he has offered a number of critical reviews of several aspects of fishery management science and climate change science.WStrong evidence of a counter consensus is documented by Dr. Alan Longhurst in his tour de force book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science.I think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/35571845/DOUBT_AND_CERTAINTY_IN_CLIMATE_SCIENCE_https_curryja.files.wordpress.com_2015_09_longhurst-print.pdfNew book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate SciencePosted on September 20, 2015 by curryja | 561 Commentsby Judith CurryDoubt and Certainty in Climate Science is an important new book that everyone should read. And its free.It is a privilege to make available to you the book Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science, by Alan Longhurst [link Longhurst print to download the book].The book is 239 pages long, with 606 footnotes/references. The book is well written, technical but without equations – it is easily accessible to anyone with a technical education or who follows the technical climate blogs.In this post I provide a brief overview of the book, biosketch of Alan Longhurst, some additional backstory on the book, and my own comments on the book.PrefaceThe Preface provides some interesting history, here are some excerpts:But more recently, I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale. The research of H.H. Lamb and others on the natural changes of regional and global climate of the Holocene appeared to be no longer of interest, and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was being discussed as if it was reducible to change in a single value that represented global surface temperature.The complex relationship between solar cycles and regional climate states on Earth that was central to classical climatology (and is still being discussed in the peer-­‐reviewed literature) had been replaced with a reductionist assumption concerning radiative balance, and the effective dismissal of any significant solar influence. I found this rejection of an entire body of scientific literature troubling, and looked for a disinterested discussion of the balance between natural and anthropogenic effects, but could not find what I wanted -­‐ a book that covered the whole field in an accessible and unprejudiced manner, and that was based solely on the scientific literature: I found text-­‐books on individual topics aplenty, together with a flood of others, either supporting or attacking the standard climate change model, but none that was based wholly on studies certified by peer-­‐review -­‐ and whose author was inquisitive rather than opinionated.One thing led to another and this text is the result. My intention has been to examine the scientific literature that both supports – and also contradicts -­‐ the standard description of anthropogenic climate change, and its effects on Earth systems: I undertook the task with an open mind concerning the interpretation of the evidence presented in individual research reports, and collectively by those who have been tasked to report to governments on the progress of climate change and to predict future states.Because of my experience, this review leans very heavily on discussion of the role of the oceans in controlling climate states, but I make no apology for this: their role is central and critical and too often ignored.Anthropogenic modification of climate, especially of micro-­‐climates, is undoubtedly occurring but I have been unable to convince myself that the radiative contribution of carbon dioxide can be observed in the data, although modellers have no trouble in demonstrating the effect.Because there will certainly be some who will question my motive in undertaking this task, I assure them that I have been impelled by nothing other than curiosity and have neither sought nor received financial support from any person or organisation in the prepaatio and distribution of this eBook.Global warming: Sun and waterHarold J Blaauw First Published March 1, 2017 Research ArticleGlobal warming: Sun and water - Harold J Blaauw, 2017Article informationArticle has an altmetric score of 4 No AccessAbstractThis paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth's climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaverstärker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lüning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.References1. IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007, the AR4 synthesis report, 2007. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar2. Beer, J, Wender, W, Stellmacher, R. The role of the sun in climate forcing. Q Sci Rev 2000; 19: 403–415.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI3. Vahrenholt, F, Lüning, S. Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 2012.Google Scholar4. Kiehl, JT, Trenberth, KE. Earth's annual global mean energy budget. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 1997; 78: 197–208.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI5. Arnol'd, VI . Ordinary differential equations, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992. .Google Scholar6. Sellers, WD . Physical climatology, New York: University of Chicago Press, 1965.Google Scholar7. Budyko, MI . The earth's climate: past and future, New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar8. Peixoto, JP, Oort, AH. Physics of climate, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar | Crossref9. Schmidt, E . Verein Deutscher Ingenieure-Wasserdampftafeln, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1968.Google Scholar10. International Civil Aviation Organization. Manual of the ICAO standard Atmosphere (extended to 80 kilometres (262 500 feet)), Doc 7488-CD, 3rd ed. Montreal (Can.): International Civil Aviation Organization, 1993.Google Scholar11. De Groot, SR, Mazur, P. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co, 1962. .Google Scholar12. Buck, AL . New equations for computing vapor pressure and enhancement factor. J Appl Meteorol 1981; 20: 1527–1532.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI13. Krivova, NA, Balmaceda, L, Solanki, SK. Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux. Astron Astrophys 2007; 467: 335–346.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI14. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: evidence and climate significance. In: Kopp, G, Lean, JL (eds). Geophys Res Lett 2011; 38: L01706.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI15. Schwartz, SE . Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system. J Geophys Res 2007; 112: D24505.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI16. Scafetta, N . Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system” by Schwartz SE. J Geophys Res 2008; 113: D15104.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI17. Knutti, R, Krähen-mann, S, Frame, DJ. Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system” by Schwartz SE. J Geophys Res 2008; 113: D15103.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI18. Schwartz SE. Response to comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of earth's climate system”, http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCap CommentResponse.pdf (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar19. Boer, GJ, Stowasser, M, Hamilton, K. Inferring climate sensitivity from volcanic events. Clim Dyn 2007; 28: 481–502.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI20. Kopp, G, Krivova, N, Wu, CJ. The impact of the revised sunspot record on solar irradiance reconstructions. Solar Phys 2016, pp. 2951–2965, . Epub ahead of print 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-016-0853-x.Google Scholar | ISI21. McIntyre, S, McKitrick, R. Corrections to the Mann (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemisphere average temperature series. Energy Environ 2003; 14: 751–771.Google Scholar | SAGE Journals22. McIntyre, S, McKitrick, R. The M&M critique of the MBH98 northern hemisphere climate index; update and implications. Energy Environ 2005; 16: 69–100.Google Scholar | SAGE Journals23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Division. Recent temperature data, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_vs/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (accessed 2013).Google Scholar24. Climate decadal oscillations, https://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar25. Scafetta, N . Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dyn 2014; 43: 175–192.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI26. Scafetta, N . Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Sci Rev 2013; 126: 321–357.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI27. IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007, the AR4 synthesis report, 2007, section 9.5.4.2. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar28. Dai, A, Fung, IY, Del Genio, A. Surface observed global land precipitation variations during 1900–1988. J Climate 1997; 10: 2943–2962.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI29. US Environmental Protection Agency, Precipitation Worldwide 1901–2013, Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation | US EPA (2016, accessed September 2016).Google Scholar30. Berger, A, Loutre, MF. Insolation values for the climate over the last 10 million years. Q Sci Rev 1991; 10: 297–317.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI31. Petit, JR, Jouzel, J, Raynaud, D. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 1999; 399: 429–436.Google Scholar | Crossref | ISIGlobal warming: Sun and water - Harold J Blaauw, 2017kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle Editionby Nakamura Mototaka (Author)Articles GSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”SOLAR FORCINGSolar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: "Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World" - ElectroversePartial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on d.sc. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDComment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warmingJuly 16, 2017 at 9:20 am“Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.Dr. Willam Gray, Colorado State Univ. noted AGW is “the greatest scientific hoax of all time.”“Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.” Prof. Martin Keeley, University College of London, cited from Newsmax Magazine March, 2010, p. 52Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the co-founder of Greenpeace, also has said “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” while Dr. Will Happer physicist at Princeton Univ, who has stated “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense,” at a Texas Public Policy Foundation meeting. Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and others at this meeting said claims of the hottest year on record are “nonsense” because there’s so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings — especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readingsIn 2014, famed astronaut Walt Cunningham went to that year’s global warming UN climate Summit and called the whole AGW gambit “one of the biggest frauds in the field of science.”Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist, withdrew from membership in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, citing unbearable group pressure to conform to the AGW hypothesis, which threatened his ability to work and even his safety. Similarly, climate statistics professor Dr. Cliff Rossiter wrote in the WSJ that global warming was “unproved science,” he was terminated form his 23 year fellowship at the liberal Inst. for Policy Studies (see article by Climate Depot, http://tinyurl.com/p6otgd9.NASA and NOAA, which get a half billion dollars a year from the government, “have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature for years, making ‘global warming; look worse than it is.: Joe D’Aleo, American Meteorology Society fellow, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdfDr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”“The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.” Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry“If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.” Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Duke University Heartland Inst. confirms this by noting “The IPCC’s climate science assessment is dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.”“ Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” Dr. Nir Shariv who also notes that “solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming” and greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant to the climate, stating if the amount of C02 doubled by 2100, it “will not dramatically increase the global temperature….” And “Even if we havle the C02 output, and the CO2 increates by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant” Dr. Nir, Shariv, top astrophysicist and assoc. professor at Hebrew Univ.“Dr. Harold Lewis, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated about ClimateGate (exposing the outright fraud behind AGW), said he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.” http://tinyurl.com293enhl“‘There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,’ John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. ‘We can’t ignore it.’ And echoing this in a related blog post, “‘Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,’ Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist”“I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates….I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”– Dr. Dennis Jensen, only science Ph.D. in Australian parliament(Note: William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology also disagrees with the global warmers)“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”– Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles“I want to …talk about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. … “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results…“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … .” … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”– Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology, cited from http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/05/the-corruption-of-science/– Atmospheric scientist Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is also a skeptic of man-made global warming fears. “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to an article. In a separate interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany” New York, he added.Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to an article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that “the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. “It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes “5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can’t measure it if it’s that small.” The article said Landsea blamed Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for “persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength.” Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a public letter. “My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy,” he continued. “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.Meteorologist Justin Berk asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims. Berk said in an article in The Jewish Times, “I truly believe that global warming is more political than anything else. It’s a hot topic. It grabs people’s interest. As a meteorologist, I have studied this a lot and I believe in cutting down pollution and in energy efficiency. But I have a hard time accepting stories how we as individuals can stop climate change. It has happened on and off throughout history. We produce pollution but that is a small piece of the entire puzzle.” Berk continued: “There are cycles of hurricanes and we had a 30-year cycle from the 1930s to the 1950s. Then from the mid-1960s to the 1990s there was low hurricane activity. We knew there would be another round of higher activity in hurricanes and now it’s happening. [But people have] latched onto this topic and it’s been distorted and exploited. I know that a lot of scientists, including the majority of TV meteorologists, agree with me. In the mid-1970s, climate experts said we were heading for an ice age. Thirty years later, they’re saying global warming. If you look at the big picture, we’ve had warming and cooling throughout history. It’s a natural cycle. We haven’t created it and it’s not something we can stop.”CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano compared Gore’s film to “fiction” in an on air broadcast. When a British judge ordered schools that show Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to include a disclaimer noting multiple errors in the film, Marciano applauded the judge saying, “Finally, finally.” Marciano then added, “The Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano specifically critiqued Gore for claiming hurricanes and global warming were linked.Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review:Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. “Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numericalapproximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn’t do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say—but I will say it—this is backwards,” he added.Meteorologist and hurricane expert Boylan Point, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast board, a retired U.S. Navy Flight meteorologist with Hurricane Hunters and currently a forecaster with WSBB in Florida, dissented from the view that man-made CO2 is driving a climate disaster. “A lot of folks have opinions in which they have nothing to back them up with. Mr. [Al] Gore I think may well fit into that category,” Point said in an interview on WeatherBrains. “To lay the whole thing [global warming] at one doorstep [CO2] may be a bit of a mistake,” Point explained. Point is a pioneer in the study of hurricanes, having logged thousands of hours flying through the storms taking critical measurements during his U.S. Navy career.http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017RECENT PETITION BY 90 LEADING ITALIAN SCIENTISTS TELLING GOVERNMENTS THERE IS NO HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CRISIS - STAND BACK“However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.”The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1.Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.9.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…718 views · View Upvoters