Home School Pe: Fill & Download for Free

At 17 years old, you’re on the brink of being legally considered an adult. The legal age of majority is 18 in Finland.This gives you some perks – for instance, you can soon get a driver’s license, legally buy alcoholic beverages, legally get into bars, vote at least in a local municipal election – but also some things to consider.You did not mention whether you hold a dual U.S. and Finnish citizenship.At 18 or thereabouts, most guys holding a Finnish citizenship and living in Finland will have to decide whether they’re going to do a military service as a conscript or opt for an alternative civilian service.Some will let the matter linger for a bit longer until they feel the time is right for it (you can postpone it until you’re 28), but most will try to get it done pretty soon after they have done their finals, and preferably before starting further studies in a university, or wherever it is they’ll be heading.17 to 18 years old also tends to be the age when you’re having to start putting time and effort into studying for the finals.In an IB school, the finals are structured in a bit different way from the standard Finnish matriculation exam.Altogether, attending to an IB school and carrying out your studies in English is of course a different experience from attending to a standard Finnish lukio, and studying in Finnish.You’ll probably have a higher percentage of non-native-born classmates, or classmates with an international background. The native ones, too, are probably slightly more internationally-oriented or ambitious and goal-driven about their future than the average, to have applied to an IB school in the first place, instead of following the standard path.Whichever way you slice it, Finland is a sparsely-populated country with lots of woods, fields, lakes, and countryside, and features lots of small towns, little villages, and isolated farms located outside zoned areas.There are only a handful of bigger cities with larger urban centers, and those are not that big to begin with. These include the capital region, which consists of the cities of Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa (which you can think of functionally forming a single city), and the Tampere region. If you squint a bit and are generous about it, both Oulu and Turku may be granted a honorable mention.The rest of the Finnish cities are more of “provincial” nature – regionally important hubs which enjoy some growth, but too small to attract or support the kind of urban lifestyle and diversity you’ll find in the bigger places.Public (intracity) transit works very well in the capital region. The coverage of the routes and the frequency at which they run are generally excellent. Armed with a monthly or yearly season travel pass and a journey planner app on you phone, you can live quite comfortably without a car if your daily journeys mostly stay within the area serviced by the local public transit authority.Public transit generally exists in the other larger and smaller Finnish cities as well, but the level of service you get correlates quite heavily with the population and the options will get patchier and more rudimentary the smaller the place is.As for your intercity travel needs, regional and long-distance trains and long-distance bus routes cover occasional journeys quite well, but you need to plan ahead as the connections are not always that frequent, tickets may get sold out before the most popular holidays, and not every place is accessible with an equal ease.No matter where you go, generally everything is pedestrian and bicycle-accessible. The sidewalks are often wide and there are often designated pedestrian and bicycle paths and routes even in the smaller rural towns and in the countryside. In practice, though, most people living outside the capital region need to own a car to conveniently get to work and run their daily errands.In the capital region in particular, and in some other bigger cities with well-developed intracity public transit, even young school kids of the elementary school age often use the public transit (buses, metro, etc.) to get to school, independently and without supervision. For an adult commuter using public transit, this means that intracity bus routes passing certain schools may get quite crowded with school kids (from approximately 8 years old and up) during certain morning and afternoon hours.There are no designated school buses, but kids who live in sufficiently far off places in rural areas (the distance from their home exceeding some set limit) are granted a right to hop on certain “normal” morning or evening bus routes to get to the school, or back from there. These routes may detour from the usual routes a bit to allow more kids to use the service.If the ordinary public transit routes do not serve them well enough, some rural kids are collected in a van taxi which drives a specific school route in the mornings and afternoons (the taxi company having established a contract with the local municipality), but which serves as a normal taxi at other times.If you don’t live that far off, you’re expected to find your own means of getting to school, though. Parents do not regularly drive their kids to school – or at least that is not the expected rule or norm. Kids living sufficiently near their school will usually just walk or ride their bicycle. Teenagers may have mopeds or moped cars or light motorcycles at their disposal.That said, parents may occasionally drive their kids to the school for some special need (the kid has been ill and has still not completely recovered, or needs to carry some sports equipment to the school, or they overslept and would otherwise be late for the class), or if it coincidentally fits their daily schedule and commute, but in the general case, they don’t.(Yes, that’s one of those moped cars. They’ve only been allowed and popular in Finland for a relatively short time, due to a EU regulation allowing them, but we’re trying to get rid of them as their safety is questionable. This could maybe be done by allowing kids to drive an actual car at a younger age but with some technical restrictions, such as a device or software configuration that will limit the top speed.)Since you cannot get a driver’s license for an actual car until you turn 18, kids who drive a car (an actual car) to the school are of the age they’re very near their finals, and almost out of the school already.As described above, a car, while convenient, is not that much of a necessity for getting around in Finland. Kids walk, ride their bicycles, use public transit, or might own a moped, or a moped car, or a light motorcycle (one with a 125 cm³ engine or smaller, for which you can get a driver’s license when you turn 16.) The cities, towns, streets, roads, and walk and bicycle paths have been designed so that driving a car is just one mode of transport and not your only practical option.Finland and Finns are sort of quiet and reserved and there’s less spontaneous interaction with strangers compared to many other places, and natives take maybe a longer time to warm up to someone new. But people are people anywhere, and you’ll also find those who are social butterflies.Spectator sports: ice hockey (local teams and world championships), track & field, swimming, race walking, winter sports (ski jump, cross-country skiing, and biathlon, maybe some snowboarding and figure skating and odd speed skating thrown into the mix), and the Finnish variant of baseball, pesäpallo. Also Formula One and rally, as well as harness (horse) racing for betting on.Lesser spectator sports: Football (the one played with your feet), tennis, and golf, maybe NHL if you’re interested enough to pay to your cable provider to be able to watch it on some premium sports channel. OK, maybe football belongs to the first group. I don’t know. Ice hockey seems to trump it here any day.Also-runs: Basketball, volleyball.Volleyball and floorball are popular recreational company team sports.Basketball, volleyball, football (the one played with your feet), pesäpallo, cross-country skiing, swimming, and different track & field sports often feature in the PE classes.Finnish schools or universities do not maintain competitive athletic teams. Everything sports-related happens on the PE classes, or to a limited degree, on the recesses, and is purely recreational in nature.There actually are competitive American football and cheerleading teams in Finland but they’re not connected to schools and not generally that well-known (OK, the Finnish cheerleading team recently won the world cheerleading championship, and was featured in the media quite a lot, but they’re still niche sports that do not have many followers.)For quite a many years, a major local TV network has broadcast the Super Bowl live (which means the wee hours in Finland), but it’s mostly a curiosity you may or may not opt to watch just to see if you can understand the sport at all. Most people watching it here probably don’t know the rules very well and the teams don’t mean much anything to them; they’re just curious to see if they can get anything out of it.Finland has this engineering vibe going on, both for heavy machinery (paper mills, forest harvesters, escalators, elevators, shipyards, a bit of car manufacturing) and softer things (cell phone networks [cell phones no longer :(], recycling, software, games).Then there are several sort-of-interesting bands and musicians and composers.Traditionally, you’d also mention a couple of architects and designers.Public health care is extensive, and what you pay into it explicitly in cash (as opposed to taxes) is merely symbolic. No-one will get bankrupt from getting ill in some major way, giving birth, or requiring major surgeries. Still, it does not mean you wouldn’t get better (more attentive) and faster service by paying for it at a private clinic, especially for non-life-threatening conditions. The politicians, however, have been planning to carry out a major revamp in how health care is organized and administered at a local, regional, and national level, and it remains to be seen what effects this change will have. (The exact details of these plans seem to change with each government, and while all of them recognize that something needs to be done, this thing has been in the works for a ridiculously long time, so it also remains to be seen which government will actually get something done.)The school system has gathered lots of international interest in the recent years, mainly due to favorable PISA rankings, and to the extent that the various magazine articles reporting on the merits of the Finnish school system already irritate many education professionals abroad, but we’ve recently also had some less impressive PISA rankings, so maybe it was ephemeral. Also, there’s been lots of experimental tweaking to the system lately which is probably not all totally without risks, but the effects of these changes will only be seen later.Finland of recent years has seen three major changes to immigration patterns, all due to joining the EU (1995) and signing the Schengen Treaty (2001).First of all, the treaty opened the borders for the EU citizens to freely move to Finland to work here or come and stay here with no border control or prioritizing domestic workforce, which e.g. made it possible for construction and cleaning companies to hire lots of Estonian workers.Secondly, we suddenly got an influx or professional street beggars from Romania, which was sort of unexpected (the home-grown beggars are homeless alcoholics who sometimes ask for change, these new sort of beggars are families which have made begging their livelihood, travel in groups usually using their own car or van, sit constantly in certain street corners, and have been begging for multiple generations), and also occasional touring groups of burglars from the Baltic States and East Europe, which was not so unexpected.Thirdly, in the recent years, and especially in 2015, Europe has seen a steady stream and some larger influxes of illegal immigrants from Middle East and North Africa. Migrants arrive aided by human traffickers over the Mediterranean Sea and the Western Balkan Route. Most of them immediately report themselves to the authorities and present themselves as asylum seekers. However, upon further investigation, many appear not to fulfill the UNHCR refugee criteria, and may in fact have not been entirely truthful about the information they have given about their age, education, or country of origin, or the reasons for seeking protection, making it seem like an attempt to get refugee status based on something other than the facts, and for some other need than the need of protection from personal persecution. Deporting such applicants is usually a lengthy process during which they may disappear from the authorities.Finland was, for the longest time, a quite unpopular and unknown destination for this type of illegal migration but this all changed in 2015 when the neighboring Sweden (known for its lax refugee policy and large preexisting foreign-born communities) was struggling to receive all those who wanted in, and let them continue over the border to the Finnish side. This created a very tense and taxing situation for the local authorities and communities who needed to quickly set up numerous ad-hoc reception centers all over the country. At the height of it, the sitting Finnish Prime Minister (bless his heart!) made a very prominent proclamation on the media that he will “open his home to the refugees”, literally promising to give his Kempele home for housing the recent arrivals, which was then also widely reported abroad. (In the end, he didn’t.)There’s a lot to be said about the policies of different EU countries and their key politicians (Merkel et al.) during that year, and later on, and some of the subsequent effects and events. That is not the subject of this answer, but when moving to Europe and settling within the Schengen area, following up on news about what is going in the Mediterranean Sea near the coast of Libya, in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, and Spain, and also Sweden and in countries such as Austria and Hungary with regard to handling the asylum-seeker matters might give some insight to what kind of political and practical challenges the EU is currently facing.Try to get your Finnish in a good working order. While especially many younger Finns speak excellent English, you will still get much more out of the country by actually being able to understand and communicate things yourself.If you already have the basics mastered, one of the ways to further that goal would be telling your Finnish friends and relatives only to speak to you in Finnish, and you making it a point of only responding to them in Finnish, however awkward that would be at first, and no matter how hard they’d want to practice their English on you. I have witnessed an exchange student to try that method and keep at it for six months or so, and it worked wonders – but of course it was easier for him as he was attending to a Finnish school and only had Finnish-speaking classmates around him.There are, of course, TV shows and song lyrics which might work as further learning material. (I mean, the kind of which would be interesting enough in and of themselves and not only because you want to get better at the language.)For instance, the police cartoon show Pasila:That’s about it. The rest you’ll find in here.Try not to have too much fun! ;)Finally, if you have specific interests (hobbies etc. you’ve done before and would like to pursue also in Finland), it’s probably not a bad idea to ask separate, more specific questions about them.

Vouchers. I'd let people choose not just where, but how they educate their kids. I would encourage freelance teaching, particularly at the primary level. I've given this example before, bit I like talking about it…As a free lance teacher, you take the benefits of being a classically trained and credentialed educator and put them in a homeschool like environment. They work directly with the parents they work for to tailor a curriculum and schedule that suits the parents and the students. If I were to do it, I'd take on 10-12 kids around the Kindergarten to first grade level with the intention of keeping them up through about 7th grade. I would do my best to avoid a “classroom” setting. Ideally, I would convert a space in my home into a learning center. I'd rely heavily on on line resources for basic teaching. But, I'd look for every opportunity to get out. Have the kids plan and build a garden in the back yard. Have them harvest and cook the food theu grow. Go to libraries, parks, museums and other public and private places of business or learning. We'd still take the required testing, but the focus would be on holistic learning rather than isolates subjects.But that's just me. As freelance teachers, you don't have administration. You, as the teacher work directly for the parent. Small classroom sizes and the same teacher for extended periods will lead to an intimacy that you don't get currently. This encourages parent involvement. This means, the teachers can target a clientele they want to work for.The national average for student expenditures is nearly $11k per kid per year. My state is close to $9k. Ten kids in my state pits $90k to play with. With no need to pay secretaries, principals and assistant principals, lunchroom staff, custodians, maintenance, security, guidance counselors, librarians and special subject teachers, how much of that money shifts to either the student or me, the teacher. I'm pretty sure that after I get established, I could probably pocket $60-70k per year; $50 at a minimum.At the high school level, I'd like schools to go from a building full of classrooms with a regimented schedule, to a giant learning center with lots of individual work stations. They get a laptop that is theirs throughout their time in school. Classes are online. They have small group rooms and labs. There are teachers on staff, but they are more like tutors. Kids aren't assigned a schedule, they're assigned assignments. They work basically at their own pace, scheduling time with teachers, labs and small group meeting like anyone does in the real world. The only area that would maybe cling to the old system is physical education. But, PE could become more like going to the gym than anything particularly organized. You're just required to do some physical activity everyday.I'd like to see the freelance system employed for people that don't want to go through a liberal arts or college prep system. Freela get a could set up automechanich programs, carpentry, IT intensive, heavy equipment operation or a number of other options. Gaps in budget could be covered through corporate sponsorships. This could be a way to pipeline kids from high school to jobs.All of this keys on money following the kids rather than the schools. This would empower entrepreneurship among educators. Right now, teachers can't innovate. And the best and the brightest are shying away from the profession. Kids are being treated like demographics rather than people. We spend so much money administration and facilities that have very little to do with actually educating our kids.How do I get the union on board? Unions switch from a labor union footing to a trade union footing. Membership isn't as much about fighting the man for more pay and benefits, but providing credentialing, insurance, and other services. They would still lobby, but they would be less public sector union and more private sector.

Come on..how could anyone “fake” climate change?The signals are coming from the planet itself. We don’t even need scientists to see this. It’s right in front of our eyes.It's so hot in India, farmers are killing themselvesSomeone please tell the farmers of the world more C02 is "good for us" when they can’t even plant their corn or they have their harvest hit by droughts or flooded by billions of tons of water because of AGW. And maybe those same people can send “thoughts and prayers” while we wait for the humanitarian and atheist help organizations to arrive with actual help?Farmers needs stability and predictability, not a rapidly warming and changing world.Rising carbon levels threaten diets of hundreds of millions of poor.Rising carbon emissions could make vital food crops from wheat to rice less nutritious and endanger the health of hundreds of millions of the world's poorest.Certain staple crops grown in open fields with elevated carbon dioxide levels had up to 17 percent lower levels of protein, iron and zinc compared to those grown amid less of the gas, according to a study in the journal Nature Climate Change.This science has been out there in the science journals for nearly 150 years. It’s now basic, trivial physics whch anyone, anytime and anywhere can duplicate with simple tools in any school lab.The science of climate science, both the natural and human made is based upon physics and observations. Tons of research, tons of studies. Tons of data.The question imply world wide conspiracy theories and is thus probably a troll question. It’s a turned table logical fallacy. You don’t ask why someone would fake “climate change”. That’s the consensus based upon overwhelming evidence.That’s the default.It’s like asking “Why would scientists fake round earth?”Scientists are 99.9999 percent sure humans caused climate changeAGW is proven by basic physics - the greenhouse effect.Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, every government, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree on AGW theory.The following are 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsScientific consensus: Earth's climate is warmingThe question should be “Why would anyone deny climate change?The only ones who are caught faking climate science are contrarians.Because, there are powerful corporate interests which do not want to get obstructions to their money flow.The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can indulge itself in even more wealth.What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you?A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.The professional climate deniers are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry used to play down the hazards of tobacco smoking. A playbook which was created by the lead polluters. Some of the climate denial think tanks are in fact still denying the hazards of tobacco smoking.It’s called denial for profit."As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway PublicThe only scientists who has been caught cheating on climate science matters are contrarian scientists. Here are 6 of them:WILLIE SOONHe has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry"At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/...Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie SoonExcept for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility.2. WILLIAM HAPPER AND FRANK CLEMENTEWilliam Happer, born 1939 (age 78–79), is a climate change denier and Professor of Physics at Princeton University, specialising in MRI imaging. He has no training in climate science. He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denier think tank.William Happer - SourceWatchHapper is not a climate scientist, but is very often used as the “C02 is good for us” alibi.Watch this video from War on our future:https://www.facebook.com/yearswa...Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science“Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal.”“Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.”Happer even told them how to pay him in dark money not to be traced.“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate scienceHapper is simply a talking head for the polluters industry paid to talk down the dangers of climate change and to portrait C02 as a “gift from God”. The tobacco industry had similar fake experts to talk down the dangers of tobacco smoking.3 & 4. ROY SPENCER AND JOHN CHRISTYCreationist Roy Spencer conveniently forgot to factor in sensor degradation in his database for a LONG time until the scientific community forced him to issue the corrections.But rather than doing a careful analysis of various potential explanations, McNider and Christy, as well as their colleague Roy Spencer, prefer to draw far reaching conclusions based on a particularly flawed comparison: They shift the modelled temperature anomaly upwards to increase the discrepancy with observations by around 50%. Using this tactic, Roy Spencer showed the following figure on his blog:(Above) The misleading and fake graph. You will find this is hundreds of denier blogs and videos.In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe.The fake and cherry picked RSS data as misrepresented by deniers:Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998Spencer being paid to write junk science on behalf of fossil fuel funded think tanks:Twitter Ads info and privacyPeter Dykstra@pdykstraRoy Spencer augments $190k U of Alabama salary by doing a climate denial paper for oil funded think tank http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/FFP-Global-Temperature-booklet-July-2016-PDF.pdf …Different types of numbersThe upper left panel in Fig. 1 shows that Christy compared the average of 102 climate model simulations with temperature from satellite measurements (average of three different analyses) and weather balloons (average of two analyses). This is a flawed comparison because it compares a statistical parameter with a variable.A parameter, such as the mean (also referred to as the ‘average’) and the standard deviation, describe the statistical distribution of a given variable. However, such parameters are not equivalent to the variable they describe.The comparison between the average of model runs and observations is surprising, because it is clearly incorrect from elementary statistics (This is similar statistics-confusion as the flaw found in the Douglass et al. (2007)).John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?____________________________Spencer and Christy’s data set has undergone many major corrections to address various errors and biases. This is how science always progresses, but those who believe that adjustments to surface temperature measurements are part of a conspiracy (including Roy Spencer) always seem to neglect the major adjustments to the satellite data. In fact, in its early days, Spencer and Christy’s data set seemed to indicate the atmosphere was cooling, before a series of big adjustments were made. [..] Much of Spencer and Christy’s contrarian research has not withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny.http://www.realclimate.org/index...http://www.realclimate.org/index...Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures.5. PATRICK MICHAELSPatrick Michaels (born 1950) is a climatologist at George Mason University, though he is currently listed as a "Distinguished Senior Fellow in Public Policy" at the university and a "Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies" at the Cato Institute. Michaels used to be the token global warming denier among real climatologists, though he seems to have been replaced by Richard Lindzenin more recent years due to some of his notorious cases of screw-ups and outright fraud, such that he has lost any semblance of plausible deniability at this point.Michaels is one of the ex scientists who degenerated into a think tank Denial for profit fake expert.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?Patrick Michaels debunked:Linked to oil/koch-brothers funded think tank? Check!The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.PATRICK MICHAELS BIG LIE:In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph — part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism. Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful. Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen’s predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book — see here).Potholer54 debunks Michaels:In this video Michaels admits he is funded (40%) by the oil industry:https://climateinvestigations.or...https://www.desmogblog.com/patri...https://www.desmogblog.com/cato-...https://sourcewatch.org/index.ph...https://skepticalscience.com/pat...https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pa...https://www.sourcewatch.org/inde...https://exxonsecrets.org/html/pe...LATEST:Cato closes its climate shop; Pat Michaels is out“The Cato Institute quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.”POLITICS: Cato closes its climate shop; Pat Michaels is out6. MURRY SALBY.is a crank.Thus you will only find links to him from the usual echo chamber of denier blogs.In fact, his hypothesis are so bad even denier blogs are not having it:“Salby’s natural carbon dioxide theory cannot be true. It is falsified. Even before detailing his definitional, mathematical, and factual errors.”Is Murry Salby Right?Salby is really a rotten egg:“John Mashey and The Guardian's Graham Readfearn decided to research Salby's legal history and came up with some stunning findings. Salby had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money after the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that Salby's "actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies."The NSF report found that Salby had funneled himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grant money through a for-profit company he created, of which he was the sole employee. To justify his salary payments to the NSF, Salby claimed to be working for this company for an average of 14 hours per day for 98 consecutive days, which aside from being entirely implausible, would also have left him no time to fulfill his university obligations. The NSF concluded that Salby's behavior was likely fraudulent, but by the time the report was completed, Salby had resigned from the University of Colorado and moved to his job at Australia's Macquarie University (from where he was later dismissed).Potentially fraudulent and unethical behavior aside, what about the scientific credibility of Salby's arguments? They too are entirely lacking in quality. We know that humans emissions are responsible for 100 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase from simple basic accounting. Humans are emitting approximately 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, and the amount in the atmosphere is increasing by approximately 15 billion tons per year (the other half is absorbed by the oceans, which in turn is causing ocean acidification, known as "global warming's evil twin"). Quite simply, human greenhouse gas emissions cannot magically vanish.Salby's argument is based on a mathematical error detailed in papers published by two of my colleagues, Gavin Cawley and Mark Richardson. In short, Salby and others who make this same mistake confuse the natural contribution to the short-term wobbles in atmospheric carbon dioxide with the contribution to the long-term trend, which is unquestionably due to human emissions. This is as settled as science gets, as noted above, proven based on simple accounting. Those who wish to be considered climate "skeptics" should think twice about unskeptically accepting the claims of someone with Salby's history and with his obviously fundamentally wrong climate arguments.”Wretched week for a typical trio of climate contrarians | Dana NuccitelliMore debunks:The lines of evidence that humans are raising CO2 levelsBONUSTHE CLIMATE DENIAL MOVEMENTS OWN JOURNAL WHERE THEY PUBLISHED MANY OF THEIR JUNK PAPERS ON CLIMATE MATTERSThe journal Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic. Co-editor is Benny Peiser.Energy and Environment is carried in the ISI and SCOPUS listing of peer-reviewed journals, but its peer review process has been criticized for allowing the publication of substandard papers. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive" She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed. The journal is not listed by the ISI Web of Knowledge, which provides “comprehensive coverage of the world’s most important and influential journals“. E&E has been described by Gavin Schmidt of the science blog RealClimate as having “effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line”.Climate Science Deniers’ Favourite Journal Just got ‘Overhauled’ — And it Could Lead to a Skeptic ShutoutThe publisher of an academic journal beloved by climate science deniers has been revamped to ensure it meets industry standards of peer-review and editorial practice. Its climate science denier editor has also stepped down.Long a home for papers that cast doubt on climate science and the seriousness of climate change, Energy and Environment was recently bought by publishing behemoth SAGE. As part of the acquisition process, the publisher “over-hauled its peer review practices to bring it into line with SAGE standards”, a spokesperson told DeSmog UK.https://www.desmog.uk/2018/02/23...Beware! Academics are getting reeled in by scam journalsThe number of predatory publishers is skyrocketing – and they’re eager to pounce on unsuspecting scholars.https://www.universityaffairs.ca...Potholer54 explains:BONUS 2:Q: How much money bribe from oil and gas industry does it take to claim that “climate scientists are in it for the money”?A: $763,331Climate scientists slam Rick Santorum's "conspiracy theory" that they're in it for the moneyWhen you have received $763,331 from oil and gas companies, I guess its mandatory to claim that "climate scientists are in it for the money" right?LOLRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are some of the worst cases of academic fraud? What can we do to prevent this?