Roper St Francis Careers: Fill & Download for Free

Yes there are many thousands of leading scientists who have studied the issue and written peer reviewed papers that demolish any fears of global warming. The leading scientists explain that CO2 is a minute gas essential for plant food in the process of photosynthesis and has little or no climate effect.Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever brilliantly destroys the global warming (aka climate change) scientific consensus in his Laureate speech below.Ivar 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.- Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent. Astrophysicist and meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, has a prediction success rate of roughly 85%...better than any of the "man made" climate change activists and proponents in the field of climate science. He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London....The Man Who Predicts Weather Better Than Anyone Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn #2 The sun and sunspots intense magnetic fields. Corbyn.Piers Corbyn; There is No Such Thing as Man-Made Climate Change‘Never mind the heat, climate change is a hoax by gravy-train scientists'C02 has nothing to do with climate.The sun is best indicator of the weather.Partial 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 Shave and Grooming Made Simple. 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 http://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_warmingTHE DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO UNDERSTANDING ALARMISM FROM PSEUDO-SCIENCE“… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.”‘Ref Human Caused Global WarmingI’ve studied climate both scientifically and academically for over forty years after spending eight years studying meteorology and observing the weather as an air crew and operations officer in the Canadian Air force. When I began the academic portion of my career, global cooling was the concern, but it was not a major social theme. During the 1980s the concern switched to global warming which he became a major political, social and economic issue.I watched my chosen discipline– climatology– get hijacked exploited in service of a political agenda, watched people who knew little or nothing enter the fray and watched scientists become involved for political and funding reasons-willing to corrupt the science , or, at least, ignore what was really going on. The tail is more than a sad story because it set climatology back 30 years and damaged the credibility of science in general.It also undermines the environmental movement by incorrectly claiming massive environmental damage and setting up a classic ‘cry wolf’ scenario. It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage is yet to be exposed and measured.There have been of course, other sad deceptions throughout history, but all of them were regional, or, at most, continental. The Deceptive idea that human– generated Co2 causes global warming or climate change impacts every person in the entire world, thus it reflects Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the global village. This book shows how the deception was designed to be global by involving every nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will wonder how such a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception. There are several reasons why the public was deceived.1. The objective and therefore the science were meditated.2. The scientific focus was deliberately narrowed to CO2.3. From the start unaccountable government agencies were involved and in control.4. Science and political structures and procedures were put in place to enhance the deception.5. Actions were taken to block or divert challenges.6. The people’s natural fears about change and catastrophe were exploited.7. The public’s lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science, was exploited.8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale couldn’t occur.9. Opponents were ruthlessly attacked, causing others to remain silentSome call the human – caused global warming theme a hoax, but that is incorrect: a hoax is defined as a humorous or malicious deception. The Piltdown man was a hoax for perpetrated by one academic to expose the arrogance and pomposity of another. Its impact was in academia but had little relevance in the real world. There is nothing humorous about the corruption of climate science. Further, a political objective need not be malevolent; however the methods used to achieve the goals are assuredly ugly, malicious and wrong.Some have called the corruption of climate science a conspiracy partly because conspiratorial themes are fueled by speculation on the Internet. But a conspiracy is defined as a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. There is no doubt what the activists have done is harmful, but pursuing a political goal is lawful. What is unlawful is using deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying the scientific method and research. Indeed, it is amazing how they deceived the entire world through using existing laws and societal structures; it fits the classic description of daylight robbery.It is more appropriate to identify the group as a cabal: a secret political clique or faction. This book explains their motive and objectives which were political, not scientific. It explains how in order to do this they bypassed and converted the scientific method–the normal and proper method by which science progresses. They effectively silenced scientist who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skepticsConsider this brave but late admission German physicist meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus:Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data… first I started with the sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what IPCC and the media had been telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by many scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.The Role of Extremists…In the moral vacuum created by the defeat of religion by science many sought a new belief system. Environmentalism fits the bill. It harkened back to the worship of nature, known as animism, of non—Christian societies. Ironically, in becoming the new religion, environmentalism became dogmatic like all religionsSo, in the Western world we moved from the dogmatism of Christianity to the dogmatism of science and then to the dogmatism of environmentalism. It is unsurprising that Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports confronted the dilemmas in an article for The Global Conversation:…At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature– for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism and the puzzling concepts in mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do they come from? Scientist don’t invent; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are Gods laws and the science we do is God’s science.The earth is the Lords and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent that Redeemer of all creation ( John 1: 2 ).A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15) Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to fact—all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.Climate of Corruption : Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming HoaxThe best response is to name the brilliant scientists who are skeptical for good reason of the radical man-made climate change pitched by the alarmists like the infamous Al Gore and James Hansen. There are 60 Nobel winners in the list that follows. These skeptical scientists. are not “deniers’ as this invidious epithet must go to those who deny natural variation and mother nature as the dominant cause of climate change now and in the past.This book reminded me very much of Moby Dick with its heavy emphasis on both an adventure story and sharing detailed information. Those who prefer one aspect or the other will probably find themselves flipping quickly through the pages that emphasize the other aspect.Popular opinions are almost always wrong. That's the theme of this book. The point is made in the context of describing how global warming, as perceived by the public and media, is different from what scientists are describing. Dr. Crichton argues through his story that we can waste a lot of time and resources on popular delusions, and we need to get our facts right. His appendix I on the dangers of politicized science is something everyone should read. The eugenics example is a chilling one.Spiritual Ecology Versus ScienceSpiritual Ecology Versus Scienceby Lewis LoflinWhy did Pope Francis choose to adopt the name of the patron saint of ecology St. Francis of Assisi? Because he believes Nature is divine. Nature is sacred. They have abandoned science and reason. Note the following definition:Spiritual ecology is an emerging field in religion, conservation, and academia recognizing that there is a spiritual facet to all issues related to conservation, environmentalism, and earth stewardship. Proponents of Spiritual Ecology assert a need for contemporary conservation work to include spiritual elements and for contemporary religion and spirituality to include awareness of and engagement in ecological issues."Science has nothing to do with spiritualism.I'll be outright on this in I believe in empirical science, not hypothetical computer models from those with the above views. In the hands of anti-humanists, techniphobes, and Nature-centered spiritualists they have no interest in technology or are hostile to it. Some advocate outright human genocide.The real dispute is empirical science based on observed facts and debate versus hypothetical computer models. The "authority" of experts overrules evidence and observed data. I reject the merging of social science, spiritualism, and socialist ideology into science. Eco-crackpots like Pope Francis advocate such thinking.·Nature's End? Hardly·Intuitive Wisdom of Organic Gardening·Environmentalism Versus Reason·Common Sense Environmentalism·Growing Up Under Armageddon Any DayWhat does Al Gore say about the 'science' behind climate change?"As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."Science has nothing to do with social justice.This is a direct quote from his book Earth in the Balance Al Gore's rambling pseudo-religious text that combines religious mysticism (Eastern, New Age, American Indian), far left politics, and a massive misuse of science not to convey scientific facts, but to give authority to his beliefs. Ecology is not a science in the same way sociology is not a science - all fail the scientific method.Dr. Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at the prominent French institution CNRS voices concern over this issue:"Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a 'participative democracy'."The scientific method is not democratic. See Postmodernism Attacks Reason, Science, and Culture.In the West today with the decline of Christianity and Judaism and with the collapse of fascism and communism many have fled to environmentalism. This has been incorporated into a lot of leftwing politics in order to attract interest to whatever cause they are peddling this week.Capitalism is now touted as destruction of the environment.Liberal churches that have abandoned their theology have incorporated politics and social work including climate change to fill empty pews.But it has become increasingly political for some bordering on a secular pseudo-spiritualism. Climate correctness like political correctness treats anyone that dares to dissent or question the issue as religious heretics or simply crazy. This is how religious fanatics behave and now we have demands that "deniers" be legally prosecuted.Retaliation can cost one their career and scientific commissions have become like 12th century inquisitions.Skepticism the very heart of scientific debate has been banned to point many scientists are forced to declare man-made climate change even on their research that disputes it.Rasmussen Reports Nov. 12, 2015 Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes;But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming...Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.In other words 32% even considering such a thing has fascism written all over it. Is it any wonder people are scared?New essays on this subject October 2018:·Nature's End? Hardly·Growing Up Under Armageddon Any Day·The Intuitive Wisdom of Organic Gardening·Common Sense Environmentalism and Reason·Common Sense Environmentalism 50 Years of Observation·Common Sense Environmentalism (Archive)·Spiritual Ecology Versus Science·Dr. James Hansen Paid Environmentalist·Green Religion Won't Save Appalachia·How Ecological Homeostasis and Hysteresis Regulate Climate·Michael Crichton Speech - Environmentalism as Religion·Dissecting Al Gore's Book Earth in the Balance·Postmodernism Attacks Reason, Science, and CultureEnvironmentalism as Religion by Michael CrichtonOne of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.Michael CrichtonIn 2003 Michael Crichton sent the Ecology industry into a rage by exposing them as a religion. He can get away with it because he has both the science background and enough money not to be silenced by the eco-lobby. In fact environmentalism is as much a fundamentalist' religion as that of Pat Robertson. He is correct about the religious undertones, but it's also a political movement as he points out.In 2008 global warming has fallen off the radar as the presidential election, high energy costs, and the Wall Street meltdown have dominated the news. But this one article seems to have been left out of the discussion. Besides reports of such record cold in Mongolia killing people and livestock, the December 19, 2007 Washington Times reports:"In Buenos Aires (Argentina), snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold...(in 2007) Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia...New Zealand...weather turned so cold..."Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton San Francisco September 15, 2003 (Extract)I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future.I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?...In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things...If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere.As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today.Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true...Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. (Note: oil has fallen to $45 a barrel June 2017) We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. (Ehrlich is still at it in 2017. See There's No Man-Made Global Mass Extinction.)Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on. With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects.He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts....I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.Environmental Religion by Michael CrichtonCAMILLE PAGLIAOCTOBER 10, 2007 11:19AM (UTC)I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.[Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"Published on 3 May 2018Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.Mullis earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta in 1966, he then received a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973.His Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993.Who is the most famous person who denies natural variation and mother nature as governing climate change?BARACK OBAMAHome | NewsfrontMonday December 03, 2018Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate ChangeFreeman Dyson (Nadine Rupp/Getty Images)By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 14 October 2015 09:32 PMNoted theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says he votes for Democrats, but is disappointed with the position President Barack Obama has taken on climate change.Dyson worked on climate change before his retirement as professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1994, and said in an interview with the U.K. Register that scientists are ignoring their own data that show climate change isn't happening as quickly as their models are predicting."It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]," Dyson said. "I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."Climate change, he said, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"In the past 10 years the discrepancies between what is observed and what is predicted have become much stronger," Dyson said. "It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable."Carbon dioxide isn't as bad for the environment as claimed, he said, and actually does more good than harm.Among Dyson's suggestions for combating climate change are building up topsoil and inducing snowfall to prevent the oceans from rising.Dyson is best known for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering.Read Newsmax: Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change | Newsmax.comThe Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists[2]1. Lennart O. BengtssonBengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.[14]Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.Professional WebsiteSelected Books·Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2001)·The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change (Springer, 2012)·Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows (Springer, 2012)·Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet (Springer, 2013)2. John R. ChristyChristy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15]Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16]; In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.[17]Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.[18]In an interview with the New York Times published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19]However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to ad hominem attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications·”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.·”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.·”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.·“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.·”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.·”Reliability of satellite data sets," Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.·”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.·”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.·”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.·”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.·”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.·”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.3. Judith A. CurryCurry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20]After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.[21]Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Academic WebsiteProfessional WebsitePersonal WebsiteSelected Books·Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Academic Press, 1988)·Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press, 2003)·Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)4. Richard S. LindzenLindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22]After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23]Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24]Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25]The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26]According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27]For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, ad hominem attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).Academic WebsiteSelected Books·Atmospheric Tides (D. Reidel, 1970)·Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application (Naval Research Lab, 1977)·The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney(American Meteorological Society, 1990)·Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1990)5. Nir J. ShavivShaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study inShaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 Naturepaper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications·”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117.·”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.·”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197.·”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146.·”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.·”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.·”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.·”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105.·”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.·”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465.·”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414.·”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.·”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres," Acta Polytechnica, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.·”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion," Nature, 2013, 494: 65 — 67.The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & SkepticsSurprising that this site displayed 10 scientists who they called prominent ‘CONSENSUS CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS and only 5 who they called prominent SKEPTICS CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS. Like the media they show a strong groupthink bias. First natural variation science is the ‘consensus position’ for the past 200 years. Therefore, AGW believers are the skeptics. Further there are far more prominent scientists including 60 Nobel Laureates standing behind and writing papers validating natural variation over human emissions of co2.Here are detailed comments from many 26 prominent scientists opposed to the shoddy science of man-made global warming of the likes of Michael Mann!“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.or...Dr. 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/...– 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...“Here is a partial list of science and other economic organizations who are on record with their doubts.“Skeptical Scientific Organizations:American Institute of Professional GeologistsGeologists are one science discipline steeped in climate history that is not fooled by the AGW false crusade.December 13, 2013a substantial number of AIPG members have expressed skepticism about the extent to which human activity is to blame for global warming during the last 150 years....“I do not know a single geologist who believes that (global warming ) is a man-made phenonomon.”Peter Sciaky Senate testimony, Oct. 29, 2007, Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 153. Pt. 20Also the American Association of State Climatologists who are not like the alarmists deniers of natural forces dominating the earth’s climate.Tuesday, 06 January 2015Is Global Warming a Hoax?Written by Ed Hiserodt and Rebecca TerrellIn our information age, we’re bombarded with statistics on every danger the number crunchers can conjure — people struck by lightning, airplane vs. automotive deaths, and even drownings in bathtubs. But one statistic is curiously missing from the list. Even though President Obama and other global-warming alarmists warn of a looming climate apocalypse, they avoid giving a metric to prove their claims. They blame man-made climate change for a vast array of ills, including floods, droughts, wildfires, and tornados. But they never quantify what they say is the driving force behind it all: temperature.They have a very good reason. Actual temperature data doesn’t cooperate with their party line that mankind is ruining the planet with its addiction to so-called fossil fuels and its appetite for ample, affordable energy. Too few taxpayers are demanding proof, and too many are willing to accept global-warming fictions on blind faith, opening the door for federal regulators to foist irrational energy restrictions on the public. Understanding Earth’s climate fluctuations will make us much less willing to let them stifle our economic, industrial, and social progress, while understanding environmentalists’ true motives may incite us to expose their deceit.American Association of Petroleum Geologists (31,000+ Members)American Geological InstituteGeological Sciences of the Polish Academy of SciencesJapan Society of Energy and Resources (1791 Members)Russian Academy of Scienceshttp://www.populartechnology.net...“The Climate Scientists' Register“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."Click on country name in the following list to see endorsers from that nation:Algéria (1 endorser), Australia (8), Bulgaria (1), Canada (17), Denmark (1),Estonia (1), Finland(1), France (1), Germany (4), Greece (1), India (3),Italy (3), Luxembourg (1), Mexico (1), New Zealand (6), Norway (5),Poland (3), Russia (5), South Africa (1), Sweden(8), United Kingdom (6),United States of America (64).THE QUESTION IS ARISTOTLE’S CONSENSUS FALLACYThe Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence”. However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.“Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. Merely because a group has a reputation, it may not deserve it; even if it deserves it, it may not be acting in accordance with it; and, even if it is, it may be wrong.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012...A more pertinent question would be: ARE THERE ANY PROMINENT WELL RESPECTED SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE?I hope you do not answer with the often nominated father of climate change, MAURICE STRONG. While he is certainly prominent he is neither a scientist nor respected. He ended his career running away to China to avoid prosecution for bribery.Officially, Strong cut his ties to the U.N. Secretariat almost two years ago, as federal investigators homed in on the discovery that back in 1997, while serving as a top adviser to then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he took a check for almost $1 million that was bankrolled by Saddam Hussein’s U.N.-sanctioned regime. The check was delivered by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad. Strong denied any wrongdoing and said he would step aside from his U.N. envoy post until the matter was cleared up.At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice Strong