Background Check Authorization Form - Marshall University: Fill & Download for Free

No. And I tell you why. They may have been a real scientist one time, before they degenerated into a fake expert for corporate interests.In this answer I will debunk all the fake experts of the Heartland Family. Dont be surprised to see all of them are fueled by fossil fuel money and or have been caught butt naked cheating.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.Its called denial for profit.There is a red line from lead, asbestos, DDT, mercury, nicotine denials and climate denial.All these industries kept portraying their product as harmless even after they knew it was not. And they used and still uses billions of dollars on disinformation campaigns telling the public there is nothing to worry about."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 PublicRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How similar to past tobacco-cancer denial is human contributed CO2- global warming denial?There are very few people still alive in our world with actually background from climate-related sciences, who still to some degree, deny AGW or who plays down the role and impact of C02 as a driver for climate change. Most of the denier "experts" are experts in a different field of science or a blown up authority paid to present the usual sewer stream of propaganda lies and myths on behalf of the oil industry funded think tank who puts money on them. Many of them stopped being scientists and degenerated into talking heads for polluters industries. Now they are bloggers who feeds the amateur deniers with junk science and fossil fuel propaganda.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial?The true climate scientists are out there in the field right now, working to increase the knowledge base on climate science matters. This database is added to on a daily basis. But climate deniers are instead relying on the now stigmatized and outdated hypothesises from these long time retired retirees.The most referred ones by deniers, with actual background from climate related matters, are ALL directly linked to the fossil fuel industry front groups and think tanks -and creationists. Wherever there are climate denial, creationists are never far away. They flock to anti science nonsense like flies to horse shit.Most notably, most of the fake experts, are directly linked to “Denial for profit” think tank The Heartland Institute. A think tank also known for their tobacco and asbestos denial.Heartland is an libertarian think which pushes corporatism and free marked libertarian ideology.Heartland Institute - Media Bias/Fact CheckTheir dream world is a world where mighty corporations runs and controls everything. A world where corporate self interests, wealth and power rules everything at the expense of public enlightenment and freedom and can pummel the public into submission and where governments are divested of the ability to control policy, economy, and ultimately the fate of the nationAnd they will attack anything which comes in their way. Thats why they attack democracy, governments, freedom, science, the scientists and the education system etc. Its a predatory anarcho capitalist system which has imploded into fascism.How the oil industry pumped Americans full of fake newsLeak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate scienceHeartland Institute: A Manifestation of the Kochtopus EmpireKoch Foundations Funding to Climate Science Denial Front Groups, 1986-2017But surely, The Heartland Institute are not talking down the hazards of tobacco smoking in 2020, right?Im afraid they do:Heartlands tobacco and asbestos denial is using the same arguments as their climate denial:Heartland Institute 2020:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science"."The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."https://www.heartland.org/Alcoho...Asbestos denial:"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-o...Nature describes Heartland like this:"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728Heartland even has it written down, black on white, in their board papers, their agenda is to undermine climate science.WOW!!Is the Heartland "Strategy Memo" a Fake? Let's try using science! - Greg Laden's Blog“Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/?fbclid=IwAR0sF0YjTSpyrOjt_O08SLZQSR8xtx-jIhs-rnhPFmioL4IykzzWTul1yi4&utm_term=.c4ab0fc45257Latest march 2020:Heartland now uses german neo nazis to spread their gospel:The Heartland LobbyHeartland Launches Website of Contrarian Climate Science Amid Struggles With Funding and ControversyThe good news is:Deniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits HomeDeniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits Home“In other words, the arguments were mostly easily debunked, contradictory nonsense in service of the most profitable and polluting industry in human history.”Heartlands fan club are now limited to a few very old white men with links to creationists.BUT FIRST,THE SPIDERS IN THE DENIAL FOR PROFIT HEARTLAND WEB:Executive director of Climate Depot and communications director for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-science think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. Morano previously worked for Sen. James Inhofe and began his career with Rush Limbaugh.Morano is a marionette for Big oil:Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc MoranoMarc Morano and his CFACT/Climate Depot blog is the heart of the Heartland Denial for profit movement.Most smear campaigns and attacks on scientists and the science has been planned by Morano. Im pretty sure he was involved in planning the (manufactured) Climategate smear attack on scientists.Interviewed in the 2014 documentary Merchants of Doubt, he described his involvement with the climate change controversy and how he started Climate Depot.“We went after James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer and had a lot of fun with it. ... We mocked and ridiculed James Hansen. I was authorized - I couldn't believe they let me do this - I did a two-part probably 10,000 words unbelievably scathing critique on James Hansen. ...Actually his scientific work isn't even in question, it's more of his public claims and publicity and interviews. I still felt restrained, so I started doing what I call the underground newsletters which went much further than anything else, had a lot more fun, a lot more humor, wit, sarcasm and sometimes nastiness. That went out and that became the basis for Climate Depot.”Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc MoranoMarc Morano - RationalWikiMarc MoranoTop 10 Climate DeniersHEARTLAND INSTITUTES AND THE WORLDS NR.1 DENIER BLOG WHATSUPPWITHTHAT.Again, in their board papers we can see they are funding WUWT blog and Anthony Watts:Here are the climate denier darling crooks A-ZTim BallChristopher BookerJohn ColemanJohn ChristySusan CrockfordJudith CurryFreeman DysonDon EasterbrookPeter FerraraDonna LaframboiseIvar GjæverWilliam HapperSteve Goddard/Tony HellerOle HumlumCraig IdsoRichard LintzenBjørn LomborgRyan MauePatrick MichaelsChristopher MoncktonPatrick MooreMarc MoranoNils Axel MørnerJoanne "Jo" NovaJordan PetersonMurry SalbyNir ShavivFred SingerWillie SoonRoy SpencerJames TaylorAnthony WattsGregory WrightstoneIncluding:Blogger and creationist Roy Spencer, creationist Timothy Ball, blogger and lobbyist Richard Lindzen, the former evangelical pastor John Christy, notorious lier and oil shill Patrick Michaels, the former tobacco lobbyist Ivar Gjæver, the fraudulent Willie Soon and lobbyist blogger Judith Curry.I’m also debunking many of the most used OPed writers used by the Denial movement.Lets debunk them one by one:Roy SpencerFunded by George C. Marshall Institute and Heartland Institute? Check!Directly linked to the fossil-fuel-industry? Check!Crank-expert? Check!Creationist? Check!Roy Spencer is just a very sad example as to how a scientist can degenerate into a fake expert. Spencer betrayed science, his profession and his colleagues to become a misinformer for corporate polluters. Now he runs a blog where he cherry picks data and twist the science so that it always turns out convenient for the polluters.ROY SPENCERS BIG LIE AND CHEAT:Have predictions historically been bad? The evidence they (deniers) cite is from Dr. Roy Spencer, who showed in 2013 that 95% of climate models over predict the temperature rises due to greenhouse gases.Unfortunately, that chart itself is based on falsely calibrated data.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.HOW THE FAKE GRAPH WAS CREATED:More:John Christy, Richard McNider and Roy Spencer trying to overturn mainstream science by rewriting history and re-baselining graphsThe correctly adjusted chart:The 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 1998THE UAH SATELLITE DATA DENIERS THINKS DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED:Can you see the trendline?Here, let me help you:Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warmingWhat trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:The University of Alabama in Huntsvillehttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.BONUS:If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average.Spencer being paid to write junk science on behalf of fossil fuel funded think tanks:Roy Spencer augments $190k U of Alabama salary by doing a climate denial paper for oil funded think tank https://t.co/NRGMODHMZv— Peter Dykstra (@pdykstra) July 20, 2016But 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 THE CREATIONISTSpencer is also a Creationist, which confirms he is anti-science. Roy Spencer has signed the The Cornwall Alliance creationist petition - declaring that "God" would never allow global warming / climate change to happen because its “sustained by His faithful providence”."We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."Prominent Signers of "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming (An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming)Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science - Real SkepticThe Cornwall Alliance seems to me to be more of an astroturf organisation, a fossil fuels front group dressed up as a creationist org where they can pander to conservative christians and sneak in fossil fuel propaganda.In the book The Evolution Crisis, creationist Spencer denies evolution:"I was finally convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, because the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexities of the world. [...] Science has scared us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to get rid of the need for a creator and designer.”http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.phpRoy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer and more lies? Climate misinformation by source: Roy SpencerThese are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really. | Dana Nuccitelli).Even more lies debunked.More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimatesCreationist Spencer debunked “Again & Again”.Roy Spencer's Great Blunder Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1, part 1A debunkingThese are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really. | Dana Nuccitelli of creationist Spencers 13 big lies.Still,ROY SPENCER CONFIRMING THE GHE AND OUR C02 CAUSES WARMING:Roy Spencer on the greenhouse effect:"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."Roy Spencer 5 August 2010http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010..."Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengtening the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surfacehttps://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots....hilarious:"Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. "http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014...BONUS 2.Roy Spencers CALIFORNIA wildfire denial debunked:California Wildfire DenialJohn ChristyLinked to oil funded think tanks? Check!Crank? Check!“Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.”The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education FoundationCHRISTY HAS BEEN WRONG FOR DECADES“It surprises no one that Christy is wrong here. Christy, and University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) colleague Roy Spencer, famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.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.The old and tired misleading non peer reviewed Christy-graph debunked again:No, you cant expect to find a correlation if you dont use the same elements. 3 apples + 2 cucumbers is not 5 bananas.https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243Graph shows a comparison between the average of an ensemble of 102 model calculations and observations (average of 3 satellite measurements and 4 balloon measurements). They have clearly not understood that they compare different sizes, so that they can not dismiss model calculations based on such.The model calculations shown by Christy are derived from the Dutch data portal ClimateExplorer. However, model calculations of temperatures at different heights above the ground in this web portal can not be found, only the temperature near the ground. The satellite measurements and balloons, on the other hand, represent the average temperature in a volume that stretches from the ground to a height of about 15 km.In addition to various statistical sizes, Christy uses different physical measures in comparison when comparing temperatures at the surface with the temperature of 15 km of the atmosphere. Increased greenhouse effect causes the lower part of the atmosphere (troposphere, which goes up to about 10km) to get warmer while the above layers of the stratosphere become colder. Does anyone see the problem with this comparison?Not only that. The satellite measurements are also model calculations,. In fact, they base on similar models that show that CO2 provides global warming. Ironically, neither Spencer nor Christy have realized this fact. In addition, the satellite curve is sewn together by different satellites with short lifespan, and the measurements from the different satellites are scattered. It is not so easy to put them together to a reliable temperature curve. They have been corrected several times.In other words, the figure of Christy and Spencer reveals basic deficiencies in understanding both statistics and physics.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimatesDifferent 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)).http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures. Another Christy debunkThe Guardian:“Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.”The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studieshttps://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1908A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instrumenthttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1WoW really? Richard Lindzen a Heartland hired crank? Check.Directly linked to fossil fuel industries? Check!Working for creationists? Check!Linked to tobacco inustry? Check!Lindzen is a contrarian who angered climate scientists by writing to President Trump, urging him to withdraw from the UN Climate Convention.Since 2013, Lindzen has received $25,000 a year from the Cato Institute, founded in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, and $30,000 from Peabody Coal for testimony in legal proceedings.“He's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.”Richard Lindzen's views are rejected by his MIT colleagues. All of them."Lindzen clings to his agenda of denial, advancing spurious hypotheses that have been thoroughly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, even by climate scientists otherwise inclined toward a conservative view of the issue."MIT professors denounce their colleague in letter to Trump for denying evidence of climate change - The Boston GlobeLindzens Iris-theory is debunked a long time ago:https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htmLindzens sensitivity nonsense debunked:https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htmTim BallLatest:Michael E. MannTimothy BallLinked to oil industry? Check!Creationist? Check!Crank and fake expert? Check!Ball is even lying about his credentials:He is often seen titled as a “former Professor of Climatology at the Univerrsity of Winnipeg.”But the problem is:The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology.His degree was in historical geography and not climatology:"Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996.”But surely, he is not a creationist right? RIGHT?Ball admitting he is a creationist:"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."Try and see this video and without laughing:I cant stop laughing.And Tim Ball is apparently too LUDICROUS to be taken seriously:Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel.The Hotwhopper blog saw it coming a long way:Climate science denial dismissed - Judge finds Tim Ball too wacky to be believed“By the way - I did predict that Tim Ball was trying for the insanity defense, back in April last year. He must be very pleased his efforts have come to this!”B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood criticized Ball (a long-retired geography professor from the University of Winnipeg) at length. Justice Skolrood wrote:“… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”Later in the judgment, Justice Skolrood wrote,“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/judge-dismisses-libel-claim-sceptic-tim-ball-not-credible-enough-take-seriously“Climate science denier and Trump transition team advisor Dr. Tim Ball, who a Canadian court earlier derided as incompetent, ill-intended, and apparently indifferent to the truth, has been further rebuffed in the British Columbia Court of Appeal and must now stand libel for a 9-year-old attack against prominent Canadian climate scientist (and outgoing BC Green Party leader) Dr. Andrew Weaver.”Canadian Court Slams Trump Climate Advisor in Successful Libel CaseWilliam 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. He is a typical fake expert and an “appeal to authority” fallacy in persona.And let me warn you…this one is ugly!! This is after the same playbook tobacco industry used to play down the dangers of tobacco smoking.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.”“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 sciencehttps://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/fossil-fuel-industry-academics-08122015/Happer 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.MY DEBUNK of HAPPERS CLAIMS:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to If William Happer thinks CO2 it a good thing, should he lead a presidential committee on climate change?Why Happer is wrong about climate models:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How many past long term predictions about global warming/climate change are true versus false?Why Happer is wrong about “C02 is good for us”.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why does the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have ill effects on life?Is C02 a pollutant? C02 is many things, but also a pollutant. Think of it as the oceans. When the waters are in the oceans, its all good. But if the waters in the oceans floods your home, its a bad thing .The US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in a landmark 2007 case.FREEMAN DYSONDyson has succumbed to old age crank syndrome as well, becoming a global warming denier. However, he hasn't done any actual criticizing of climate science besides dismissing the models as flawed and saying that if it is a real problem, we can easily cook up some super-tree to suck the carbon dioxide out of the air.Freeman Dyson - RationalWikiFreeman Dyson, RIP | National ReviewLOBBYIST BLOGGER JUDITH “ I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry” CURRYJudith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htmhttps://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curryPatrick J. Michaelsalso known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.Latest: They are shutting down Michaels: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 outPatrick 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.On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warmingWatch Potholer54s brilliant takedown of Michaels: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...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).In this video Michaels is admitting he is funded (40%) by the oil industry:WILLIE SOONhttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html"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"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. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.THE FAKE EXPERTS:IVAR GJÆVER.Who We Are - Ivar GiaeverGjæver is not a climate scientist and thus has written zero peer reviewed papers, nothing, on climate matters. He is a fake expert for the fossil fuel industry think tanks. And he did the same dirty job for tobacco industry.Here are Ivars own words on his climate credentials:"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google”. (Ivar Gjæver)Ivar Giaever (2012)Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in physics (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.___________________________________________________But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.The only people who uses Ivar at this moment are fossil fuel funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute or creationists. Here we see Ivar speaking at the Cornwall Alliance creationist convention:Nobel physicist Ivar Giaever's classic lecture on global warmingAnd I almost forgot to mention that Ivar used to do the same fake expert thing for tobacco giant Philip Morris.Ivar Giaever: Nobel Icon For Climate Deniers, and Philip MorrisNobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate ChangeClimate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration. As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015 (supporting AGW).Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for your self: https://www.cmu.edu/.../2016/nas-climate-change-letter.htmlIf we add this report,Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, the world’s most prestigious academy, founded by Abraham Lincoln, with over 200 Nobel Price winners among their members.“Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”We end up with AGW Nobel Laureates 276 - Ivar Gjæver 1Ivar Giæver en skam for vitenskapen.Gjæver er ikke klimaforsker og har således skrevet null, ingenting, zip, nada, om klima i den fagfellevurderte litteraturen. Han er en falsk ekspert for fossil brensel. Og han gjorde den samme skitne jobben for tobakksindustrien.På The Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting for noen år siden holdt han et innlegg om et tema han ikke har satt seg inn i; global oppvarming. Forelesningen var så til de grader infantil og mangelfull, at de øvrige 36 deltagende nobelprisvinnerne (herav 16 fysikere og 2 astronomer) skjønte at kunnskapsfornektelsen nå hadde nådd deres egne rekker, og reagerte med å forfatte det som nå omtales som The 2015 Mainau Declaration, adressert til verdens politikere for å be dem om å lytte til vitenskapen (altså ikke Giæver).Senere er det kommet til flere nobelprisvinnere og det er nå >70 signaturer.Nobelprisvinner og klimaguruKronikk: Forunderlige klimamyterNobel Laureates Issue A Call To Action On Climate ChangeENTER THE SEA LEVEL CRANKNILS-AXEL MØLNER.As you can see from the picture (above), Mølner is a regular at Heartland conventions.Mörner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.And no surprise, his climate denial and sea level crankery is at the same level as his dowsing nonsense:“Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification which are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that Mörner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level rise or climate science in general. One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data.”INQUA has been trying to dissociate itself from Mörner's views.“Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level RiseNils-Axel MornerOle Humlum.THE MAD PROFESSOR BEHIND THE climate4You denier blog.Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for – CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is don’t worry, it’s natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.Humlum et al paper debunks here and here.De fagfellevurderte papirer Humlum har vært med på blir grundig avvist her:Looking at irrelevant aspectsHumlum et al. (2013; HSS13) argued that changes in CO2 follow changesin the temperature, and that this implies that the increases seen in the Keeling curve are not man-made. Their claims implicitly support the CO2-curve 21 presented by Beck (2008), and the thesis that the increase in the CO2 concentrations seen in the Keeling curve is not due to the burning of fossil fuels, has long been an aspect of agnotology surrounding the global warmingissue. The analysis on which HSS13 based their conclusions filtered out the long-term signal through a correlation between the annual time differences in CO2 and temperature. This procedure removes the long time scales, and emphasises the short-term variations. Hence, HSS13 found the well-known link between El Niño Southern Oscillation and CO2. They then incorrectly assumed that this link excludes the effect of anthropogenic emissions.HSS13 chose to analyse a short series from 1980 describing the global analysis of the CO2 concentrations rather than the almost identical series from Mauna Loa going back to 1958. They also applied a differencing operator (DIFF12) to the data followed by a lagged correlation, and in effect removed all trends and long time scales.A comparison between the shorter global and longer Mauna Loa series had some effect on the lagged correlation, however, the main problem was the use of DIFF12 followed by the correlation, as this strategy is designed to neglect trends. It is easy to demonstrate that the method Humlum et al. used is unable to pick up the longer time scales, as shown in replication Demos. In other words, the analysis emphasised the short time scales, and the analytical set-up was pre-disposed to ignore the anthropogenic component to the CO2 concentrations. Hence, the analysis contained a logical flaw since conclusions based on short-term fluctuations were drawn for the long-term time scales.Another problem was that their study did not account for the carbon budget such as sources and sinks. It is not clear whether the increased CO2 was assumed to originate from the ocean surface or the deep ocean, and their discussion ignored the literature concerning diffusion of trace gases in the oceans. They also neglected the work documented in the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007) regarding changes in the O2/N2 ratios, the acidification of the world oceans, and isotope ratios (Kern and 22 Leuenberger, 2013). Further criticism of HSS13 have been published in comments to the article (Masters and Benestad, 2013; Richardson, 2013). The way HSS13 fails logically suggests it can be attributed to category C: addressing a different question. Another point was missing relevant contextual information, such as facts about the carbon cycle and ocean dynamics.Selective use of data Humlum et al. (2011a; HSS11a) suggested that natural cycles, e.g. the moon and solar variability, play a role a role in climate change on Earth, and that their influence is more important than changes in the greenhouse gases (GHGs). A replication of their analysis can provide a means for turning these contrarian claims into an educational exercise. The core of the analysis carried out by HSS11a involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.A new paper (Richardson, 2013) in the journal Global and Planetary Change that calculates the man-made and natural contributions to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2) since 1980. It comments on a study by Humlum and others (2013) and uses the same data and part of the same approach as them, but gets a completely different answer. I do this because I follow the maths to calculate the size of each effect and I find that the entire rise in atmospheric CO2 is man-made.https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337NIR SHAVIV“Shaviv is a climate change skeptic and was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. While he does believe the earth is warming, he contends that the sun's rays, rather than human produced CO2, are the cause.But a 2009 analysis of data "on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest.The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate."Shaviv's arguments and research conclusions have been undermined by subsequent research and his analyses critiqued as "based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and [drawing] untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming.". Shaviv argues that cosmic rays influence cloud cover, but this link is still under question.”Nir Shaviv - SourceWatchJORDAN PETERSON.Jordan Peterson has degenerated into and eerie conservatism and pseudo intellectualism and is thus a perfect propaganda tone troll for cultural Marxism , alt right white supremacists and the whole War on science movement.Him posing with fans wearing hate speech t-shirts just after the New Zealand terror, really says it all.His recycling of creepy crawly PragerU propaganda and denier think tank nonsense really says it all.Experts on climate change about Peterson.https://www.thestranger.com/slog...A Field Guide to Jordan Peterson’s Political ArgumentsJordan Peterson - RationalWikiBJØRN LOMBORG“With respect to climate change mitigation, Lomborg presents the same false dichotomy in much of his output: there are limited resources, so we must choose between dealing with global warming or what Lomborg has decided are "more important problems". He considers AIDS and other diseases, starvation, malnutrition, and poverty to be more important problems than global warming, yet his framing of the issue treats global warming as a discrete issue, ignoring the fact that it will actually exacerbate the other problems he considers to be more important. Strangely, Lomborg spends most of his time and effort debunking these "unimportant" environmental concerns, writing tendentious books and setting up bullshit forums titled in such a way as to confuse the ignorant — he has done little to nothing to encourage greater spending on what he considers the really great problems.”Bjørn Lomborg - RationalWikiSome look at these data in an attempt to find something, anything, they can cherry-pick to claim that either global warming’s effect on sea level isn’t happening, or that we should look at it as “no problem.” A classic example happened nearly 10 years ago, when Danish climate “skeptic” Bjorn Lomborg wrote this in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian:THEIR NEW CATO INSTITUTE DENIER DARLING RYAN MAUEAnd , you can't make this shit up;Even other climate deniers think tanks admits Maues graphs are fake:Global Warming Policy Foundation concedes that the Tory peer's supposedly official figures were wrong and produced by a right-wing think tankHowever the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has now revealed the source of these supposedly “official” figures was a meteorologist who works for a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, founded by US billionaire and leading climate sceptic, Charles Koch.“It has been brought to our attention that a temperature chart prepared by US meteorologist Ryan Maue and published by Joe Bastardi, and which was referred to in the Today programme appearance of Lord Lawson, was erroneous.UK’s leading climate sceptics admit claim that global temperature has fallen was falseIt’s important to note that Maue is part of a think tank that’s co-founded by wealthy climate denial funders, the Koch brothers, and that Bastardi is a well-known climate denier. It’s likely that the GWPF already knew about their backgrounds – they just hoped no one would do a little digging and find out.Although this admittance is weirdly satisfying, it’s also worth pointing out that the GWPF tweeted immediately afterwards that the rest of Lawson’s claims to the BBC were true – despite the fact that they were demonstrably false.Since the ruckus, the GWPF has gone back to telling the world that man-made climate change is a massive hoax. At the same time, most of the world has continued working on combating climate change.Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph | DeSmog UKTONY HELLER / STEVEN GODDARDHellers batshit crazy conspiracy theories are so bad even fellow deniers are having none of it. Hilarious:Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication". [...] "I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,"Full debunk from Politifact.Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warmingPolitifact judge Hellers claims as :POTHOLER54 BRUTALLY DEBUNKS HELLER.Steve Goddard/Tony HellerGoddard in his own words:“First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. As a result, any layperson on the Internet who has researched global warming with Google to a fair degree has likely read the bullshit posted on my website […]”“And so although a complete nobody in the climate debate, I have a fair amount of influence over thousands, perhaps millions, of impressionable individuals who don’t have a basic grasp of the facts on global warming…My next big break was my speaking gig at Heartland Institute’s climate denier conference held in Las Vegas just a couple of weeks later in July. You can watch my rambling, bumbling presentation at the conference here. Despite my rather underwhelming talk, the event was still a fantastic opportunity to network with other climate deniers and start connecting with others who could help me get paid for spewing my bullshit to my denier lemmings and clouding the climate change debate for my unsuspecting readers.Since that time, the hundreds of embarrassingly bad blogs posts that would torpedo any real scientist’s career hasn’t put a dent in my career as a professional denier. For example, there was the time I confused sea ice with a glacier on my blog and had to erase all evidence of my post when I got called out on it. Despite my buffoonery, things have actually been going swimmingly. Because fake news has become indistinguishable from real news in the minds of many and because scientific knowledge has been overwhelmed with nonsense, it makes it possible for someone like me to have real influence. My bogus charts have been cited by the likes of United States Senator Ted Cruz and I even appeared and spoke alongside Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts at his press conference in 2016. I’m also now frequently quoted as a climate authority by right wing propaganda outlets like Climate Depot and Breitbart.I’m looking forward to continuing my work and building upon my reputation as an unapologetic sociopath and fighting the climate jihadists with juvenile insults. I am a rabid partisan and my work is an extension of my extreme right-wing ideology. Do I feel shame deceiving readers with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, half truths, and ceaseless cherry picking? Nope! In fact, I view all progressives as the enemy and I will gladly say next to anything if I think it will undermine them. And I certainly have no issue with doing all this work for money so please donate today!”Who Is Tony HellerDid NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000?http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003Fox News Flash! NASA Fakes Temp Data! Obama Born in Kenya! Batboy Found in Cave!NOAA and temperature data - it must be a conspiracy.Debunks:Steven GoddardHow Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science - Greg Laden's BlogWas Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sunIt’s Time to Boot Climate Deniers Off Social MediaPATRICK MOOREMoore went from being a defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters”Patrick Moore - SourceWatchBut lets get the facts first:Patrick Moore Did Not Found GreenpeacePatrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.Full debunk:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why would the founder of Greenpeace suggest there is no evidence of man-made global warming?FRED SINGER:SINGER HAS DONE IT ALL:Talked down the dangers of tobacco smoking, denied the ozone hole threats and now AGW.S. Fred Singer is well known for taking a stand contrary to medical evidence that second hand smoke from cigarettes is not bad for you. Funding for his work has been linked to special interests both in the tobacco industry and more recently the fossil fuel industry. Dennis Avery, is an economist.[Singer] has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having "published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971.S. Fred Singer - RationalWikiS. Fred SingerLeaked documents obtained by DeSmog revealed that Fred Singer has also been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute. With the help of Craig Idso, Singer helped develop the Heartland Institute's “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),CRAIG IDSOCraig IdsoThe Idso Heartland junk:We Fact-Checked a Bogus “Study” on Global Temperature That’s Misleading ReadersWe Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature That's Misleading ReadersMURRY 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.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 levelsPETER RIDDClimate Science Deniers Have a New Hero and His Name Is Peter Ridd“Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”James Cook University professor Peter Ridd's sacking ruled unlawfulGreat Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting scienceExclusive: Panel head Ian Chubb compares ‘roadshow of Dr Ridd’ to tobacco industry strategy defending smokingGreat Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting scienceState government-funded managers urge cane farmers to question reef scienceExclusive: Speaking tour by controversial academic Peter Ridd is being supported by sugarcane managers paid for with Queensland government fundsState government-funded managers urge cane farmers to question reef scienceClimate Science Deniers Have a New Hero and His Name Is Peter RiddAre climate sceptic Peter Ridd's controversial reef views validated by his unfair dismissal win?Could Salvatore Vasta be Australia's worst judge?Real science tells us the Great Barrier Reefs are not in a good condition.Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier ReefDuring 2015–2016, record temperatures triggered a pan-tropical episode of coral bleaching, the third global-scale event since mass bleaching was first documented in the 1980s. Here we examine how and why the severity of recurrent major bleaching events has varied at multiple scales, using aerial and underwater surveys of Australian reefs combined with satellite-derived sea surface temperatures. The distinctive geographic footprints of recurrent bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 were determined by the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year. Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016. Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs.Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier ReefGlobal warming and recurrent mass bleaching of coralsKey points from the study:2015-2016 saw record temperatures that triggered a massive episode of coral bleaching across the tropicsCoral bleaching events should no longer be thought of as individual disturbances to reefs, but as recurring events that threaten the viability of coral reefs globallyThe Great Barrier Reef has had three major bleaching episodes, in 1998, 2002 and 2016, with the latest being the most severe and with catastrophic levels of bleaching occurring in the northern third of the Reef (a region approximately 800 km or 500 miles in length)The amount of bleaching on individual reefs in 2016 was tightly linked to local heat exposureThe cumulative, superimposed footprint of the three mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef has now encompassed virtually all of the Great Barrier ReefPast exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of the bleaching in 2016Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of AustraliaJOHN COLEMAN (r.i.p)Coleman was not even a scientist. He was a tv weather man. The Heartland Institute hijacked him towards the end and made him go on TV and spew the usual long time debunked fossil fuel propaganda talking points.Deniers are still using Coleman to attack climate science even after he is no longer with us. Maybe they dont even know he is dead??Just to make it clear, and please dont laugh now, but his own Weather Channel is rebuking Coleman:The Weather Channel has released an official position statement on global warming, just two days after the channel’s co-founder told Fox News’ Megyn Kellythat climate change is based on “bad science” and does not exist.In the statement, The Weather Channel said the planet is “indeed warming,” with temperatures increasing 1 to 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. The statement acknowledged that humans are helping make the planet warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.Weather Channel Rebukes Its Co-Founder On Climate ChangeColeman doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology, as he himself has admitted.To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April.But a climate scientist, he is not.Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.FAKE “LORD” CHRISTOPHER MONCKTONHeartland Institute? Check!Fossil fuel crank? CheckBlown up fake authority? Check!Long history of lies and disinformation? Check!No peer reviewed papers? Check!In 2015, scientists looked at one of his very few scientific papers to make it into the peer-reviewed literature in a junk journal and found it was “riddled with errors” — and published a response in the same journal.'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate sciencePotholer54s brilliant series of debunks on Monckton:Another debunking from Peter Sinclair:Climate Denial Crock of the WeekDON EASTERBROOK:Very old conservative white man?? Check!Linked to Heartland Institute? Check!Connections to Big Oil?? CheckCrank-expert? Check!Decades of misinformation? Check! and Check!https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.htmlEasterbrooks prediction models are very very bad:BONUS - HEARTLAND AND OTHER OPINION WRITERS AND WOLF PACK ATTACKERS SPEWING ANTI SCIENCE NONSENSE AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES FASTER THAN YOU CAN SAY BREITBART.Who We Are - Peter FerraraPeter Ferrara, a "senior policy adviser" at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. 'I do that all the time,' Ferrara [said]. 'I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future',"Peter J. FerraraTaylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds, and the Heartland Institute, which has consistently received funding from ExxonMobil.James M. Taylor - SourceWatchPinch your arm, you wont believe this:SOME “CUTE” ASBESTOS DENIAL FROM JAMES TAYLOR:"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1Gregory WrightstoneWhile Heartland Institute have their own fake experts to channel their desinformation through, they sometimes hire some “regular” dude to promote their denial propaganda. Gregory Wrightstone is another puppet who has seemingly “written” a book, but its really just a front for Heartland propaganda. The same old tird lies.The book is thorn apart here:It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate DenierAnd , here is their mandatory Corona denial too:Donna Laframboise“Donna Laframboise is a journalist, photographer, and founder of Global warming info you deserve to hear, a website critical of the IPCC and skeptical of climate change. In late 2013, Laframboise became a senior fellow for the Frontier Center for Public Policy, a freemarket think tank based in the US and Canada.”“The content at Global warming info you deserve to hear. makes clear that we are dealing with a writer who does propaganda, not any investigative journalism driving by an honest desire to learn and understand.””Her “Heartland”-book debunked:Donna Laframboise recycles old attacks on IPCCDonna LaframboiseJoanne "Jo" Nova(real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut. She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.Joanne Nova - RationalWikiChristopher Bookeris a creationist columnist for the Sunday Telegraph in the UK, where he writes anti science nonsense faster than you can say quackery quack.He is known for being a crankery crank who talks down the hazards of tobacco smoking and asbestos as well as spewing the mandatory climate denial propaganda junk.Booker’s false claims (42 articles and counting) downplaying the risks of white asbestosChristopher BookerSUSAN CROCKFORD.Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed“University of Victoria adjunct professor Susan Crockford doesn't seem interested in discussing the monthly payments she appears to receive from the climate denying Heartland Spinstitute.The Heartland Institute's Denialgate documents indicate that the spinstitute gives Crockford $750 per month. She is one of three Canadian university professors on the denier dole at Heartland, along with Madhav Knandekar and Mitch Taylor.”According to a description of her work by The Martlet, Crockford is“a sessional adjunct professor in Archaeozoology in the Pacific Rim with research focuses on the domestication and breed development, evolutionary theory and the evolution and history of the domestic dog.”Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford ProbedDENIERS FAVORITE BLOGGER ON POLAR BEARS IS LYING THROUGH HER TEETH ON BEHALF OF FOSSIL FUEL FUNDED THINK TANKS:How climate denial blogs misinform so many people with such poor scientific arguments.New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial | Dana NuccitelliSusan Crockford writes a lot about polar bears, but does so mostly on her own website and for anti-mitigation thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); not in the scientific literature.Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing BackThe researchers also singled out Polar Bear Science, a blog run by Susan J. Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, as a primary source of dubious information about the status of polar bears.About 80 percent of the contrarian websites that the researchers studied referred to Dr. Crockford’s blog as a primary source, they said.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/...Analysis of "Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying"Published in Financial Post, by Susan Crockford on 27 Feb 2018Three scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Misleading. Financial Post publishes misleading opinion that misrepresents science of polar bears’ plightInternet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy | BioScience | Oxford Academichttps://academic.oup.com/bioscie...Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back.Hun ble ikke sparket.. Hun hadde kun vikar jobb på korte perioder, og fikk ikke jobb videre , etter kontrakt var gått ut. Hun leverte vel heller ikke noe fagfelle vurdert forskning, så da måtte hun gå. Dem fleste påstandene hennes er uten hold. Og hun er blitt hauset opp av skeptikere som en helt.https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/16/deniers-club-meet-the-people-clouding-the-climate-change-debate/?utm_term=.d4e1d99457c1https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/a-list-of-climate-misinformers-like-roy-spencer-and-murray-salby.329735/Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?

If it were an undergrad paper, think I’d give it a B-. If it were really well written, it might rise to a B, but I haven’t been able to find an English transcript. As a serious military man, Zhukov certainly deserves a listen — he’s not just a crank. The theory does offer an interpretation of the most prominent evidence which makes a certain amount of sense.So, it’s worth discussing.On the other hand I don’t think it pass muster as professional history — at least not without being loaded down with a lot of qualifications. The problem with the Zhukov thesis is that it requires basically saying, “I know what the sources say — but the sources are lying!”That’s something that professionals avoid whenever possible, because the source material is the center of gravity in historical research. You aren’t obligated to believe everything the sources say — everybody knows they are often biased and often incomplete. But the range of things that might be possible if you dismiss them out of hand is infinite: you can’t have fruitful discussions if you simply get to set aside evidence you don’t like. That’s a fact the historical profession generally learned in the late 19th century after a long flirtation with simply wishing away evidence that wasn’t congenial… and one which civilians have discovered all over again since the rise of the internet.Here follows a longish examinations of what Marshal Zhukov would have needed to consider to up his grade and to avoid the accusation of simply refusing to believe the sources.ArchaeologyTo really make the case strongly, you’d want some positive evidence. Ideally archaeological evidence would make it clearer — say a string of mass graves where the evidence showed Indian victors interring Macedonian dead, or a cache of Greek weapons in armor that looked like an Indian victory monument. On the other hand there’s also the chance that archaeology could undermine the Zhukov thesis. If the remains of Alexandria Bucephalous, Nicaea, or Alexandria on the Indus are ever conclusively identified, that would demonstrate that Alexander was at leisure to found cities after the battle on the Hydaspes. Obviously, civic planning is an odd hobby for a shattered and fleeing army, so finding something unambiguous would lay this debate to rest once and for all.Another possible archaeological proof would be the altars which Alexander is said to have erected along the Hyphasis river — the site of the (alleged) mutiny and the furthest extent of his travels. If one of those were to turn up it would strongly suggest that that traditional account is correct: beaten armies generally do not sit around waiting for the stonemasons go finish carving inscriptions before fleeing their conquerors.However, all that waits on the arbitration of the shovel.This coin of Alexander’s is believed to represent Alexander (on horseback) charging Porus (on the elephant, distinguished for his height) The mint mark says the coin was produced in Babylon. While it’s not inherently more reliable than a textual source for the truth of the traditional accounts, it does demonstrate conclusively that the outline of the traditional story was circulating within a few years of Alexander’s campaign. Photo: Warwick UniversityAlternate sourcesLacking archaeology, a contemporary Indian source describing a victory on the Hydaspes, or a victory monument with an inscription by Porus, would certainly help make a revisionist case. However, none have been found. Conflicting original sources always help to sharpen the picture. Of course, any textual evidence (on paper or carved in stone) has to be treated with equal suspicion on all sides: a defeated Indian king would have just as much reason to spin his loss into a victory as Alexander would. Still having a contrasting source would help a great deal to clarify matters. Unfortunately there aren’t any known non-Greek sources that cover the issue. An inscription or something might turn up, but until it does we don’t have much to work with.The closest thing we have to an Indian version of these events are the traditions about the great strategist Chanakya, who is said to have helped Chandragupta Maurya to overthrow Alexander’s governors in the Indus Valley after Alexander’s death.That’s a story which only makes sense if Alexander had left an intact system of alliances and garrisons behind him (a topic we’ll revisit below).The wider contextLacking contrasting Indian sources, our main remaining avenue for investigation is the larger picture in the surviving Greek sources. When one source is in question you try to see how well it fits with other (ideally, unconnected) evidence. If Zhukov tried to do that, I have not heard of it — as I said, the text of his remarks does not seem to be available in English. However given the context — which I’ll talk about below — I’d be surprised if it included an exhaustive review of sources besides Plutarch and Arrian. Zhukov was not a classics scholar.Here are some of the salient points to consider when looking at the larger context of the battle on the Hydaspes.1: Alexander’s monumentsThe usual recap of the battle between Alexander and Porus tends to focus on the immediate aftermath — one of the key arguments for a Porus victory is the story of Alexander’s chivalrous treatment of Porus right after the fighting stopped. However there’s more to consider. The traditional account, as we’ve said, goes on to talk about Alexander’s monuments along the Hyphasis (that is, the Beas). They have not been found by archaeologists — but as we’ve said, should they turn up they’d provide powerful support for the traditional account.We don’t have archaeology, but it happens there are two literary references which do suggest that Alexander’s monuments were still visible two or three centuries after the event. Philostratus, in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, describes a monument to Alexander and Porus on the site of the Hydaspes battle, and reproduces an inscription on one of those altars along the Hyphasis. Writing a little earlier, probably around the year 75 or so, Plutarch also reports that the altars were still standing in his day and local kings still offered sacrifices there.This is highly suggestive — but not conclusive. On the plus side we have two writers, not clearly using a shared source, who both claim that Greek monuments were still visible east of the Hydaspes in the first century. Plutarch does not cite a source, however, and the Life of Apollonius includes a lot of wonder-stories, so the value of these testimonies comes at something of a discount. Ancient history is not about ‘proof’ and ‘disproof’, it’s about relative probability. These accounts are useful supporting evidence but not more than that.2: The two PeithonsIf you only focus on the famous battle, you might the fairly detailed descriptions in Arrian of the governmental arrangements Alexander left behind. The details there — and they way they dovetail with other parts of this history of Alexander’s successors — provide a useful way to get at the reliability of the traditional story Alexander in India.Perhaps the best example of how this works are the interlocking story of two Macedonian generals, Peithon son of Agenor and (confusingly) Peithon son of Crateuas.Peithon son of Agenor was the man that Alexander is said to have left as governor of the lower Indus when the bulk of the army marched home. A second general, Philip son of Machatas, was created satrap (= governor) of the upper Indus watershed — though before Alexander left he was killed by his own troops and replaced by another general named Eudamas. In the traditional version Alexander’s Indian ally Taxiles was paired with Eudamas on the upper Indus and Porus was paired with Peithon.If Alexander really fled from the Hydaspes in disarray, we’d expect not to find any further evidence of these ephemeral appointments (Peithon was actually appointed in the year after the battle with Porus in the traditional account — another strange outcome of a terrible defeat).Again, it would be nice to have archaeological confirmation. The short-lived Philip was supposed to be the founder of Alexandria-on-the-Indus (probably modern Uch), allegedly to help Alexander fit out his fleet to journey downriver to the sea. If we found clear evidence of his dockyard and supply dumps, that would be a strong argument for the traditional account.Lacking that, we have to look at the literary record. Are there further mentions of Alexander’s Indian satrapies? Or did they disappear in the chaos following Porus’ victory?The literature offers several mentions of what happened to the Indian domains. More importantly, it does so in contexts where the motive of disguising a battlefield defeat does not really apply, since the key events are some year’s after Alexander’s death.After Alexander died in Babylon in 323, Peithon son of Crateuas was appointed satrap of Media, in modern Iran. This was a plum appointment, one of the most strategically and economically vital parts of the empire. Predictably, his fellow Macedonian generals feared and distrusted him. One incident stands out in connection with the state of Alexandrine India. In late 323 or early 322, the sources say, this Peithon was tasked by the shaky central government with intercepting a large group of Greek soldiers who had deserted their posts in the “Upper Satrapies” — Gandara, Bactria and India — and headed for home when they heard of Alexander’s death. This was a large, organized group: Diodorus puts it at 23,000 men.This suggests that in 322 there was still a significant presence out east; but because of the vagueness of the terminology its hard to be sure that these veterans came from India and not from, say, Bactria. In any case Peithon son of Crateuas tried to cut a deal with these Greeks, because he was aiming at improving his own position. However the central government had anticipated this, and some of the troops he was given to quell the revolt had secret orders to massacre the mutineers instead. The rest of the Macedonian high command didn’t want 20,000 veterans joining Peithon’s army.The story illustrates the levels of paranoia that were starting to infect the upper ranks of the Macedonian army after Alexander’s death. But, because the terminology here is vague, this is only weak evidence for the persistence of Alexander’s satrapies in the east.It does however set the stage for a more important piece of evidence.The partition of Triparadisus in 321 was a desperate effort to keep Alexander’s empire from fracturing completely. The various Macedonian factions hammered out a power sharing deal that was supposed to keep the empire as a unit — though as things turned out it provided the blueprint for the generation of warfare that was to follow.For our purposes the important clue here is that the traditional accounts all describe the Macedonians of 321 continuing to make appointments in the Indus valley.The country of the Parapamisians was bestowed upon Oxyartes, the father of Roxane; and the skirts of India adjacent to Mount Parapamisus, on Peithon the son of Agenor. As to the countries beyond that, those on the river Indus, with the city Patala (the capital of that part of India) were assigned to Porus. Those upon the Hydaspes, to Taxiles the Indian.So here is Peithon son of Agenor, still in India in 321 — five years after the battle on the Hydaspes and still working with Porus and Alexander’s ally Taxiles.Is that more propaganda? If it its, it’s incredibly elaborate: four years later, in 317, Peithon son of Crateuas reappears, this time allied with Eumenes of Cardia, Alexander’s former secretary who had found a flourishing second career as a warlord. Once again, the other generals rallied around to stop him — including, this time, Peithon son of Agenor who marches west from India.Peithon of Media and Eumenes were defeated. As a reward for his support Peithon son of Agenor which landed him a far superior assignment as satrap of Babylon — an office held from 315 to until his death in 312. Clearly, the troops he brought with him from India were a powerful enough force that his support was worth a serious buyout.Of course, this was also a critical weakening of Alexander’s old Indian provinces — pulling a large force away from the frontier to fight in civil disputes rendered Macedonian India far more vulnerable. It’s no coincidence that Chandragupta Maurya’s campaigns against Alexander’s territories are usually believed to start around the year 315. The Latin historian Trogus, writing around the time of emperor Augustus, says this about Seleucus Nicator, who founded the Seleucid empire out of the ruins of Alexander’s eastern possessions in 305:[Seleucus] next made an expedition into India, which, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck, and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus [= Chandragupta Maurya] who afterwards, however, turned their semblance of liberty into slavery; for, making himself king, he oppressed the people whom he had delivered from a foreign power, with a cruel tyranny.That’s perhaps an unfair description of Chandragupta’s achievements, but it is clear evidence that Macedonian garrisons and generals were still around after Alexander’s death. And — unlike descriptions of Alexander’s behavior to Porus on the battlefield it’s not subject to the same political pressure that might try to protect Alexander’s reputation. It is, after all, a concession of defeat.* It also lines up fairly well with traditional Indian accounts of Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya overthrowing Alexander’s garrisons in the Indus Valley.So, the traditional account of Alexander’s campaign can’t be read in isolation. It has a number of important cross-linkages with other, reputable stories about subsequent events which all make no sense if Alexander had barely escaped from India with his life. Since Alexander himself was dead before any of these accounts were set down, and no single authority arose to replace him, it’s hard to see who would have either the motive or the means to coordinate such a huge rewriting of ten years of turbulent history to disguise a single defeat thousands of miles away. Plenty of other unflattering stories about Alexander survived those years and are part of our common sources; it’s hard to see why this one would be special.Whose agenda?The core of the Zhukov thesis is that the story Alexander’s supposed victory on the Hydaspes followed by the mutiny on the Hyphasis is really a piece of propaganda covering a catastrophic defeat. This is an idea that might have a particular appeal to a marshal of the Soviet Union.Zhukov — whose career, after all, was made under Josef Stalin, in an atmosphere where propaganda permeated every aspect of life — may very well have assumed that a similarly totalitarian atmosphere formed the backdrop of the ancient sources. He probably also could not bring himself to believe that Porus and Alexander’s post-battle relationship was anything but a lie. Zhukov was, after all, the hero of a 20th century total war — a struggle to the death in which chivalry and generosity toward defeated opponents were utterly incomprehensible ideals. And of course tales of a mutiny probably stuck him as bizarre: in his own armies, deserters and malcontents were shot out of hand.Against that background you can see how he would be skeptical of what seems like a charming fable. However the line between “interesting take on this passage” and “valid historical argument” is very wide, and I’ve never seen any evidence that the steps a professional would take to try to validate such a novel reading were really part of Zhukov’s plan.**In any case, Zhukov’s reading of the sources does not really seem like an abstract exercise in historical speculation. The “Zhukov thesis” was delivered as a speech to cadets at the Indian Military academy in 1957 — during a state visit at the height of India’s post-colonial flirtation with the Soviet Union. It’s no accident that he chose to say “Alexander suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia” — how better to flatter the nationalist sentiment of his audience while reminding them of Russia’s anti-colonialist credentials? The effectiveness of this rhetorical stroke can easily be seen in the universal popularity of this reading among nationalist circles in India and Pakistan today. Perhaps it will come as no surprise that it is still also popular in Russia’s semi-official media.TLDRAs an interesting spur for discussion (albeit one with a pretty blatant political subtext) the Zhukov thesis is worth talking about — even if only because it forces some close attention to the sources.As an actual history of events, it’s not very strong. None of the supplementary evidence brought forward here is beyond critique, of course — but to establish this case these are the kinds of evidence we’d need to see. “It doesn’t seem right to me that an enemy would be so generous after a battle” is an interesting place to start investigating; without a bunch of extra labor, however, it’s just an interesting, but unsupported opinion.B- for an undergrad; C for a grad student.Zhukov demonstrates his experience in 1957 India* There’s a secondary debate in the history of this period concerning the relations between Chandragupta and Seleucus. Folks who follow the views of Zhukov about Alexander and Porus also tend to say that Chandragupta defeated Seleucus and made peace with him on victor’s terms. But that’s a separate discussion** Zhukov apparently ascribed the origin of his theory to E. A. Wallis Budge … most famous as an Egyptologist, but also a translator of both Syriac and Ethiopian versions of the Alexander romance. The Romance is a fun read — but it’s the least reliable of all the texts regarding Alexander’s careers. I’ve never been able to find a quote from Budge that actually repeats this Zhukov argument; it’s not clear if this is confusion or simply the provision of a respectable-sounding footnote that nobody is expected to check.

Iglesia ni CristoWhy dont you look at Wikipedia. You are the end of a bell.[ɪˈgleʃɐ ni ˈkɾisto], abbreviated as INC; English: Church of Christ) is an international Christian denomination that originated in the Philippines. It was registered in 1914 by Felix Manalo,who became its first executive minister.The Iglesia ni Cristo proclaims itself to be the one true church and says that it is the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus and that all other Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic Church andProtestant sects, are apostates.INC doctrine cites that the official registration of the Church with theGovernment of the Philippine Islands on July 27, 1914, by Felix Manalo—upheld by its members to be the last messenger of God—was an act of divine providence and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning the reestablishment of the Church of Christ in the Far Eastconcurrent with the coming of the Seventh sealmarking the end of days.By the time of Manalo's death in 1963, the Iglesia ni Cristo had become a nationwide church with 1,250 local chapels, and 35 large concrete cathedrals.His son Eraño Manalo became the next church leader and led a campaign to grow and internationalize the church until his death on August 31, 2009,whereupon his son,Eduardo V. Manalo, succeeded him as executive minister.In 2010, the Philippine census by the National Statistics Office found that 2.45 percent of the population in the Philippines are affiliated with the Iglesia ni Cristo, making it the third largest religious denomination in the Philippines after the Roman Catholic Church (80.6%) andIslam (5.6%), respectively.Contents[hide]1History1.1Background1.2International expansion1.3Centennial1.4Twenty-first century2Beliefs and core values2.1Bible2.2God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit2.3One, true church2.4Felix Manalo2.5Baptism2.6Excommunication2.7Eschatology and resurrection3Practices3.1Worship and prayer3.2Evangelism3.3Outreach4Administration and organization4.1Ecclesiastical districts5Architecture6Geographic distribution and membership7Social influence in the Philippines8Reception from other religions9Notes10References11External linksHistory[edit]During American colonial rule over the Philippines, there were a variety of rural anti-colonial movements, often with religious undertones,and American Protestant missionaries introduced several alternatives to the Roman Catholic Church, the established church during Spanish colonial period.Background[edit]Built in 1937, the former chapel of the Punta, Manila congregation is now an INC museumFelix Manalo, born on May 10, 1886, in Taguig, Philippines, was baptized a Roman Catholic. In his teenage years, Manalo became dissatisfied with Roman Catholic theology. According to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, the establishment of the Philippine Independent Church (also called the Aglipayan Church) was his major turning point, but Manalo remained uninterested since its doctrines were mainly Catholic. In 1904, he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church,entered the Methodist seminary, and became a pastor for a while.He also sought through variousdenominations, including the Presbyterian Church, Christian Mission, and finally Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1911. Manalo left the Adventist church in 1913, and associated himself with atheist and agnostic peers.On November 1913, Manalo secluded himself with religious literature and unused notebooks in a friend's house in Pasay, instructing everyone in the house not to disturb him. He emerged from seclusion three days later with his new-found doctrines.Manalo, together with his wife, went to Punta, Santa Ana, Manila on November 1913, and started preaching. He left the congregation in the care of his first ordained minister, and returned to his native Taguig to evangelise; there, he was ridiculed and stoned in his meetings with locals. He was later able to baptize a few converts, including some of his persecutors. He later registered his new-found religion as the Iglesia ni Cristo (English: Church of Christ; Spanish: Iglesia de Cristo) on July 27, 1914, at the Bureau of Commerce as a corporation sole, with himself as the first executive minister.Expansion followed as INC started building congregations in the provinces in 1916, with Pasig (then in Rizal province) having 2 locals established.The first three ministers were ordained in 1919.By 1924, INC had about 3,000 to 5,000 adherents in 43 or 45 congregations in Manila and six nearby provinces.By 1936, INC had 85,000 members. This figure grew to 200,000 by 1954.A Cebu congregation was built in 1937—the first to be established outside of Luzon, and the first in the Visayas. The first mission toMindanao was commissioned in 1946. Meanwhile, its first concrete chapel was built in Sampaloc, Manila in 1948.Adherents fleeing for the provinces away from Manila, where the Japanese forces were concentrated during the World War II, were used for evangelization.As Manalo's health began to fail in the 1950s, his son Eraño began taking leadership of the Church. Felix Manalo died on April 12, 1963.Within the span of 49 years of Felix Manalo's administration, the Iglesia ni Cristo had 1,250 local chapels, and 35 large concrete cathedrals.Felix Y. Manalo was a recognized and highly respected religious leader of the Philippines.International expansion[edit]INC Central Temple in Quezon City, PhilippinesOn July 27, 1968, Eraño G. Manalo officiated the inaugural worship service of the church in Ewa Beach, Honolulu, Hawaii—the first mission of the church outside the Philippines. The following month, INC established the San Franciscocongregation. In 1971, the church set foot in Canada. In June 1987, the US Main Office (USMO) was set up in Daly City, California to assist the INC central administration in supervising the then 11 districts of the church in the West. The first local congregation in Latin America was established in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1990. The following year, the church reached Mexico and Aruba. From 2000 and beyond, congregations rose in the Central and South American countries. The first local congregation in Europe was established in England in 1972. The church came to Germany and Switzerland in the mid-70s. By the end of the 1980s, congregations and missions could be found in the Scandinavian countries and their neighbors. The Rome, Italy congregation was established on July 27, 1994; the Jerusalem, Israel congregation in March 1996; and the Athens, Greece congregation in May 1997. The predecessors (prayer groups) of these full-fledged congregations began two decades earlier. Meanwhile, the mission first reached Spain in 1979. The first mission in northernAfrica opened in Nigeria in October 1978. After a month, the King William’s Town congregation, in South Africa was established. A congregation was organized inGuam in 1969. In Australia, congregations have been established since mid-1970s. The church first reached China by way of Hong Kong, and Japan through Tokyoalso in the 1970s. Missions have also opened in Kazakhstan and Sakhalin Island in Russia. In Southeast Asia, the first congregation in Thailand was established in 1976 and missions have already been conducted in Brunei since 1979. In addition, there are also congregations in Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia.In 1965, INC launched its first resettlement and land reform program in Barrio Maligaya, Laur, Nueva Ecija. INC started operating a radio station in 1969 while its first television program aired in 1983.The Ministerial Institute of Development, currently the New Era University College of Evangelical Ministry, was founded in 1974 in Quiapo, Manila and moved in Quezon City in 1978. In 1971, the INC Central Office building was built in Quezon City. In 1984, the 7,000-seater Central Temple was added in the complex. The Tabernacle, a multipurpose, tent-like building which can accommodate up to 4,000 persons, was finished in 1989. The complex also includes the New Era University, a higher-education institution run by INC.Eraño Manalo died on August 31, 2009.His son, Eduardo V. Manalo, succeeded him as executive minister upon his death.Centennial[edit]On July 21, 2014, President Benigno Aquino III and INC executive minister Eduardo Manalo led the inauguration of Ciudad de Victoria,a 140-hectare tourism zone in Bocaue and Santa Maria, Bulacan, where the Philippine Arena is also located. The Philippine Arena, a 55,000-seater multi-purpose structure, touted as the world's largest indoor domed arena (by seating capacity), was constructed for the INC's centennial celebration on July 27, 2014.On July 27, 2014, INC celebrated its centennial anniversary at Ciudad de Victoria, with Philippine Arena as the main venue, and in about 1,180 worship buildings worldwide through live video feed. The week-long celebration consisted of pyro-musical displays, worship service led by Manalo, oratorio, musical presentation, theatrical play, quiz show, and evangelical mission.For the worship service conducted for the INC centennial, INC secured two Guinness World Records for the largest gospel choir with 4,745 membersand largest mixed-used indoor theater for the Philippine Arena with 51,929 attendees.On July 26, 2015, INC capped their centennial year through different activities such as International Unity Games, worship service led by Manalo, and Closing Centennial Celebration which were held at Washington D.C. USA, and the Philippine Arena.Within the span of six years (2009-2015), the church has added 3,100 new ministers, 1,513 new graduates of Bachelor of Evangelical Ministry with additional 8,896 current ministerial students, and more than one million new officers. INC has also established 25 new ecclesiastical districts, 337 new local congregations, 318 new local extensions, and 170 new group worship services. The church has built 665 new worship buildings, 297 barangay chapels, and 1,863 congregations doubled in membership as part of its centennial projects.Two main offices (Burlingame, CA, USA; Heathrow, London, UK) and 35 administrative infrastructure projects were also inaugurated in the same period.Twenty-first century[edit]INC worship building in Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe first INC School for Ministry outside the Philippines was set up in Sacramento, California in December 2013. On November 4, 2014, Manalo inaugurated the new main campus building of the INC's College of Evangelical Ministry. The seven-floor edifice which is located at the New Era University grounds costs more than Php 1 billion or US$21 million.On April 25, 2015, coincided with the dedication of the 600-seater worship building in Daegu, South Korea, Manalo led the oath-taking of 729 newly graduates of Bachelor in Evangelical Ministry as new regular evangelical workers. It is by far the largest batch of evangelical workers in INC history.During the mid of 2015, internal conflicts challenged the century-old church. It was when Felix Nathaniel "Angel" Manalo, the brother of current executive minister Eduardo Manalo, and their mother, Cristina "Tenny" Manalo, the widow of former executive minister Eraño Manalo, uploaded a video to YouTube alleging that the INC administration had threatened their life and that there has been a mass kidnapping of ministers. The Iglesia ni Cristo, however, denies the claims of kidnapping and has expelled Angel and Tenny Manalo for what they have described as creating schism in the church and power grabbing.On October 4, 2015, INC, through Viva films, conducted the world premiere of Felix Manalo, a film depicting the origin of the INC and the life of its first executive minister, which was held at the Philippine Arena. The premiere broke three Guinness world records for the largest audience in a film premiere, the largest audience in a film screeningand the largest paying audience for a film premiere with 43,624 attendees.On December 31, 2015, INC shattered three more Guinness world records for their new year celebration. These are the records for the longest line of sparklers lit in relay, the most sparklers lit simultaneously, and the largest fireworks display. INC broke the record of Norway of 540,382 fireworks with 750,000 pieces of fireworks which lasted for an hour.Beliefs and core values[edit]Iglesia ni Cristo believes that it is the true church established by Jesus Christ in the first century, and that its registration in the Philippines is the fulfillment of biblical prophecies that Jesus Christ's church would re-emerge in the Far East.Because of a number of similarities, some Protestant writers describe INC's doctrines asrestorationist in outlook and theme.INC, however, does not consider itself to be part of the Restoration Movement nor any external religious organization. The Iglesia ni Cristo deems Christian religious organizations outside INC to be "children" of the "apostate" Roman Catholic Church.The church stresses its independence, saying that it is not a denomination or sect of any of the major groupings and is neither affiliated to any federation of religious bodies, nor itself an assembly of smaller religious organizations.Bible[edit]The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that the Bible is the only book inspired by God, and the sole basis of all their beliefs and practices.God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit[edit]The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that God the Father is the Creator deity and the only true God. INC rejects the traditional Christian belief in the Trinity as heresy,adopting a version of unitarianism. They believe that this position is attested by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.The church believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of Godand the mediator between God the Father and humanity,and was created by God the Father. God sanctified him to be without sin, and bestowed upon him the titles "Lord" and "Son of God". The church sees Jesus as God's highest creation, and denies the deity of Jesus.Adherents profess Jesus' substitutionary role in the redemption of humankind. He is believed to have been "foreordained before the foundation of the world", and sent by God "to deal with sin". Members "are saved by Christ's blood" who died because of his "self-sacrificing love".INC believes that the Holy Spirit is the power of God and also not a deity, being sent by God the Father and Jesus Christ to guide God's people.One, true church[edit]Iglesia ni Cristo flag (the colors represent faith, hope and love while the seven-branched candelabrum or menorah represents the church in the Bible)The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christand was restored by Felix Manalo in the last days. They believe that the first century church was apostasized in the 1stor 4th century due to false teachings.INC says that this apostate church is the Roman Catholic Church. Meanwhile, its reestablishment is seen as the signal for the end of days.They believe that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the fulfillment of the Bible verse, Isaiah 43:5, where "east" refers to the Philippineswhere the Church of Christ would be founded.INC teaches that its members constitute the "elect of God" and there is no salvation outside the Iglesia ni Cristo.Faith alone is insufficient for salvation.The Iglesia ni Cristo says that the official name of the true church is "Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo (in Tagalog)". The two passages often cited by INC to support this are Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you"and the George Lamsa translation of Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore . . . to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood."Felix Manalo[edit]Felix Manalo is said to be the restorer of the church of Christ, and "God's last messenger" (sugo in Tagalog).INC says that Manalo is the "angel from the east", mentioned in Revelation 7:1–3 who started the INC at the same time that World War I broke out. This period according to INC is referred to as the ends of the earth (cf Is 41:9-10; 43:5-6) the time when the end of the world is near, even at the doors (cf. Mt. 24:3, 33), which began with the outbreak of a war of global proportions (cf. Mt. 24:6-7)Felix Manalo is from the Philippines, which they say is in the ‘center’ of the Far East.The ‘four winds’ in Revelation 7:1-3, they say refers to World War I and the four angels are the four leaders known as the big four (Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, and Vittorio Orlando) who they say worked on the prevention of the war.Manalo is also portrayed as the fulfillment of several passages in Isaiah and other books of the Bible.Manalo's titles are "ravenous bird from the east" (Isa. 46:11), "worm Jacob" (Ps. 22:6-7), "one shepherd" (John 10:16) and "the last Elijah" (Mt.17:10-11; Mal.4:5).As the one who established the INC, Manalo was the chief administrator, chief theologian and spiritual leader of the church.As such, he was the ultimate authority in all aspects of the church, and effectively "the foremost Biblical authority for all humanity and the divinely designated leader of a reestablished church of Christ in the modern world."Baptism[edit]The church believes that baptism is done by immersion baptism or Believer's baptism by adults in water, and that it is necessary that people be baptised in the Iglesia ni Cristo to become disciples of Jesus Christ.The church rejects infant baptism. Newborn children of members are instead dedicated to God through a congregational prayer, led by an ordained minister of the INC.People who wish to be baptized in the INC must first submit to a formal process taking at least six months. Once someone officially registers with their local congregation, the person is given the status of being a Bible student (Tagalog: dinudoktrinahan) and taught the twenty-five lessons concerning fundamental teachings and its beginnings in the Philippines. These lessons are contained in the doctrine manual written by Eraño G. Manalo entitled "Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo". This book is given to ministers, evangelical workers, and ministerial students of the INC. Each lesson is usually thirty minutes to one hour in length. After hearing all the lessons, the students enters a probationary period (Tagalog: sinusubok) during which they are obliged to attend fifteen once-a-week group prayer meetings, where they are taught to pray and are guided in their adjustment to the INC lifestyle. When the sixth month comes, students who have been active in attending the twice-a-week worship services and whose lifestyles are in accordance with INC doctrines are screened before being baptized. During the screening, they are asked questions about the teachings of the church.Excommunication[edit]Members who are not living in accordance with the doctrines taught in the INC are admonished. Those who continue in violation of INC doctrines after being admonished are excommunicated or expelled from the INC and thus lose salvation, and therefore, the church does not believe in the perseverance of the saints. Certain violations, such as eating blood,being absent for too long without any solid reason during worship services, or marrying or having a romantic relationship with a non-member may result in mandatory excommunication.Eschatology and resurrection[edit]See also: Christian eschatologyINC believes that a person is composed of a body ("vehicle"), soul ("individual") and spirit ("life" or fuel). Members believe that when a person dies, his/her body and soul both die and go into the grave where both will remain until the Second Coming of Christ, whereas the spirit will go back to God. Upon Christ's return, all dead servants of God, from the time of the patriarchs up to the last days, would be resurrected to join living faithful and loyal INC members. They will be rewarded by living in the Holy City or New Jerusalem, together with God the Father, and Jesus Christ. After 1,000 years, a second resurrection would occur, and non-INC members will experience second death which is the Lake of Fire (Dagát-dagatang Apóy).The church believes that God set a day where He will judge all people. They believe that this day is also the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.INC divides time into three eras: the era of the Patriarchs from creation to the birth of Moses, the era of the Prophets from the birth of Moses to the birth of Jesus, and the Christian era from the birth of Jesus to the Last Judgment. Adherents believe Felix Manalo to be the last messenger of God in the Christian Era.Practices[edit]Worship and prayer[edit]The church conducts regular worship services, one during the week, and one during the weekend, conducted in the local languages (providing sign language interpreters and translators in some congregations). It consists of singing of hymns, prayers, studies of the bible, collection of voluntary offerings, and benediction.Both God the Father and Jesus are worshiped.The ministers of every congregation in a given worship service use the same sermon outline prepared by the executive minister. Deacons and Deaconesses guide worshipers to their seats and collect voluntary offerings.The singing of hymns is led by the locale's choir. The first hymnbook, termed as Ang Himnario ng Iglesia Ni Cristo, which consists about 300+ songs, was published in 1937. Children worship services (Tagalog: Pagsamba ng Kabataan or PNK) are held every weekend. They use similar lessons as the standard worship services taught using the Socratic method(question and answer).The church teaches that willfully forsaking the worship service is a grievous sin,thus members are expected to attend the congregational worship services twice a week without fail.The church encourages its members to make prayer a part of everyday life. Thus, prayer before various activities, such as taking meals and going to sleep, are commonly practiced.Prayers recited in rote repetition are not observed.Evangelism[edit]INCTV Channel-49 and INCRadio 954 kHz, the official religious channel and radio station of Iglesia ni Cristo.Since February 1939, the church has been publishing Pasugo(English: God's Message) in both Tagalog and English.As of 2010, the God's Message Magazine also features a Spanish section and in 2012 it has alsoGerman and Japanese sections. Felix Manalo wrote its first editorial where he stated the publication's purpose, including the propagation of the faith.Issues contain articles which detail INC doctrines and refute doctrines which it considers as heresy, such as the Trinity.It also features information on church history, educational programs and missionary achievements, including lists and photographs of newly dedicated chapels. In 2001, it had a monthly circulation of 235,000 copies.For the year 2009, there were more than four million copies of Pasugo distributed worldwide.In the Philippines, through the Christian Era Broadcasting Service International Incorporated (CEBSI Incorporated), INC broadcasts programs that discuss Bible teachings over the radio and television. These programs are aired by about 60 other radio stations all over the Philippines (i.e. INC Radio- DZEM 954kHz) and several more in the US and Australia. INCTV-49, as well as major cable stations in the Philippines and some channels in the US Direct TV ch 2068, telecast the INC’s religious programs. These programs can also be seen in the Internet via the website www.incmedia.orgINC holds religious gatherings called evangelical missions regularly which aim to attract more followers. On February 28, 2012, INC held its largest Philippine-wide evangelical missions simultaneously on 19 sites across the country.In Manila site alone, more than 600,000 people attended the event.On April 13, 2013, INC launched Lingap-Pamamahayag under its project Kabayan Ko, Kapatid Ko (English: My Countrymen, My Brethren), which incorporates outreach missions to its evangelical missions.On September 26, 2015, INC held its first worldwide evangelical mission at the Philippine Arena as the main venue and in 2,125 sites throughout the world through video conferencing. It was officiated by INC executive minister, Eduardo Manalo.Outreach[edit]On November 19, 1981, INC has launched the Lingap sa Mamamayan (Aid To Humanity) Program. The program aims to provide relief goods, health care, and other services to the needy, especially those who are afflicted by calamities and disasters. It also provides seminars for disaster preparedness, first aid, and family planning. Other humanitarian activities such as blood donation and community clean up drives were also conducted in different parts of the world where the Iglesia ni Cristo is established.Felix Y. Manalo (FYM) Foundation, the INC's arm in executing the Lingap sa Mamamayan and other related programs, was formally registered in the Philippines on February 4, 2011, and in the United States on May 17, 2012. The institution is also recognized in Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Russia.INC also established the Unlad International, Inc in 2012.It is the INC's arm in providing sustainable livelihood to its members.On July 7, 2012, the INC Lingap sa Mamamayan was conducted in the slums of Parola in Tondo, Manila and was awarded three Guinness world records for breaking records in the most people involved in a dental health check, the most blood pressure readings taken in 8 hours and the most blood glucose level tests in 8 hours.On February 15, 2014, INC bagged another two Guinness world records when they conducted a worldwide charity walk simultaneously on 135 different sites scattered in 29 countries. INC holds the records for the largest charity walk on a single venue when 175,509 members of the church finished the 1.6 km walk in Manila; and for the largest charity walk in 24 hours (multiple venues) when a total of 519,521 participants finished the charity walk in different parts of the world. The proceeds were used for the housing and livelihood projects of super Typhoon Haiyan survivors.On February 22, 2014, INC conducted another Lingap sa Mamamayan at its first resettlement project in Barrio Maligaya in Palayan City, Nueva Ecija. Coinciding with the barrio's 49th anniversary, INC bagged another world record after setting the record for the most number of hunger relief packs distributed within eight hours. A total of 302,311 hunger relief packages were given.On March 14, 2014, after conducting a worship service in Tacloban, Leyte, INC executive minister Eduardo V. Manalo, led the groundbreaking ceremony of the EVM Self-Sustainable Community Rehabilitation Project in Sitio New Era, a 3000-hectare property of the church in Brgy. Langit, Alang-alang, Leyte. The project which costs more than one billion pesos includes at least 1000 housing units for the survivors of super typhoon Haiyan. Garments and dried fish factories, and eco-farming project are also included to provide livelihood to the community. More than 150,000 hunger relief packages were also given which contains 3 kilos of rice, canned goods and instant noodles aside from the free medical and dental services conducted that day.On January 23, 2015, Manalo inaugurated the livelihood and housing project.On November 9, 2015, Manalo inaugurated a community project for Kabihug tribe, an indigenous group in Camarines Norte. The project is situated in a 100-hectare land which includes 300 housing units, calamansi orchard, ecological farm, dried fish factory, garments factory, clinic, learning center, and an INC worship building.Administration and organization[edit]Iglesia ni Cristo has had three executive ministers (Tagalog: Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan) that lead the church administration in overseeing the faith of the members. Eduardo V. Manalo, as the current executive minister, serves as the church's leader, and, in this capacity, manages the administration of the church.Along with other senior ministers which comprises the Church Economic Council (Tagalog:Lupon ng Sanggunian), the executive minister forms the Central Administration of Iglesia ni Cristo .All church ministers and evangelical workers are male, however, there are numerous female church officers. Ministers are encouraged to marry for the purpose of obeying the command to marry and multiply, and to become effective counselors to church members with family-related problems.The Central Office in Quezon City is Iglesia ni Cristo's headquarters. The central office is one of several structures inside the central office complex. It houses the permanent offices of the central administration and some of the church's departments. It is here where about a thousand INC professionals and volunteers hold office. Built in 1971 for ₱ 22 million (US$473 thousand), the building is currently estimated to be worth ₱1 billion (US$21 million).It was located in Maniladuring its early years, then in San Juan, and later in Makati, before moving to its present site. INC also has two main offices outside the Philippines; in Burlingame, California, USA and in Heathrow, London, United Kingdom.Ecclesiastical districts[edit]Administration and ministerial work are delegated into ecclesiastical districts (termed divisions until 1990) which are led by district ministers (formerly, division ministers).Ecclesiastical districts comprise 15 to 70 congregations (referred to as locales) on average.All locales were directly managed by Felix Manalo until 1924 when the first ecclesiastical district was organized in Pampanga.INC oversees 128 ecclesiastical districts, 101 in the Philippines and 27 more districts throughout the world:Hawaii-PacificPacific NorthwestNorthern CaliforniaSouthern CaliforniaWestern CanadaEastern CanadaNorthern MidwestSouthern MidwestNortheastern SeaboardMid-AtlanticSoutheastern SeaboardArabia EastArabia WestChinaJapanQatarSouth KoreaSoutheast Asia ISoutheast Asia IITaiwanUnited Arab EmiratesNorthern EuropeSouthern EuropeUnited KingdomAfricaAustralia EastAustralia WestArchitecture[edit]INC worship building in San Jose, CaliforniaIglesia ni Cristo church buildings primarily serve as places of worship and are used for other religious functions. These are described by Culture and customs of the Philippines, a book published by Greenwood Publishing Group, as structures "which employ exterior neo-Gothic vertical support columns with tall narrow windows between, interlocking trapezoids, and rosette motifs, as well as tower and spires." There are multiple entrances leading to the main sanctuary, where males and females sit on either side of the aisle facing a dais where sermons are made. The choir loft is located behind the dais, and in larger churches, a baptistry with pools for immersion baptism is located at the back of the church.Meanwhile, Fernando Nakpil-Zialcita, an anthropologist from Ateneo de Manila University,said that INC churches can be uniquely identified for "its exuberant use of fanciful forms and ornaments [and a] brilliant white facade whose silhouette is a cusped Gothic arch or a flattened Saracenic arch."The distinctive spires represent "the reaching out of the faithful to God."Prominent architects, such as Juan Nakpil (a National Artist of the Philippines for architecture) and Carlos A. Santos-Viola, had been involved in designing INC churches while the Engineering and Construction Department of INC, established in 1971, oversees the uniformity in design of church buildings.INC worship building in Montclair, CaliforniaThe first chapel was built on Gabriela Street in Tondo, Manila in 1918, fashioned out of sawali (woven leaf panels), nipa and wood, typified the style and materials of the early chapels. After World War II, INC began to build concrete chapels, the first of these in Washington (Maceda), Sampaloc, Manila completed in 1948. Next came the chapel and former official residence of the executive minister in San Juan, Rizal (now San Juan City, part of Metropolitan Manila). The complex in San Juan was designed by Juan Nakpil.The Central Temple which opened on July 27, 1984, can accommodate up to 7,000 persons, and cost about US$2 million was designed by Carlos A. Santos-Viola.The Central Temple features octagonal spires, "fine latticework" and ribbed windows. Recent buildings are variations on the designs of the Central Temple. These are designed to accommodate 250 to 1,000 persons while larger churches in Metro Manila and provincial capitals can accommodate up to 3,000 persons.INC churches outside the Philippines which were acquired from different religions undergo intensive renovations to meet the standard of their worship services.Since most of INC churches abroad were acquired from different religions, there is significant variation from one house of worship to another.Geographic distribution and membership[edit]Countries and territories with official INC presenceCountries and territories with no official INC presenceAccording to the official INC website, the Iglesia ni Cristo membership comprises 114 nationalities. It maintains 5,545 congregations and missions grouped into 128 ecclesiastical districts in the Philippines and 102 other countries and territories.Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics group, estimated INC membership to be at least 3 million members worldwide.In 2010, the Philippine census by the National Statistics Office estimated that 2.45% of the Philippine population is affiliated with the Iglesia ni Cristo, making it the third-largest religious denomination in the country after the Catholic Church and Islam, respectively.Social influence in the Philippines[edit]Felix Manalo's birth site was recognized in the Philippines as a National Historical LandmarkEver since former Philippine president Manuel L. Quezon created a lasting friendship after asking Felix Manalo for advice, the INC has been known for its strong social influence.INC members are noted for bloc voting in Philippine elections,with conversion turn-out between 68 and 84 percent of its members voting for candidates endorsed by its leadership, according to comprehensive surveys conducted by ABS-CBN.This is in part due to their doctrine on unity. Recent estimates say that the INC can deliver a minimum of 1.37 million members of voting age (61% of 2.25M based on 2010 census).INC vote seems to be only significant in close-run elections, noting that some INC-supported candidates lost in the election. BusinessmanEduardo Cojuangco Jr. lost to Fidel Ramos in the 1992 Philippine presidential election.In 2010, Iglesia ni Cristo declared support for Benigno Aquino III and Mar Roxas for president and vice president respectively. Aquino won the election but Roxas lost to Jejomar Binay.The support of the INC was reportedly sought out for passage of the bill for the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. In 2008, the INC and the Catholic Church were pitted against each other when health advocate RH Advocacy Network (RHAN) sought the support of the INC to counter the firm opposition of the Catholic Church and former Philippine president Gloria Arroyo to the bill.Representative Janette Garin of the first district of Iloilo said the INC's stand could determine if the bill gets passed in the House of Representatives. She said the opinion of the Iglesia ni Cristo is “important” in determining the fate of House Bill 5043.On June 12, 2009, former Philippine president Arroyo approved Republic Act No. 9645, an act that declares July 27 of every year as "Iglesia ni Cristo Day", an official national working holiday, in recognition of INC's exemplary feat of leading its members towards "spiritual enlightenment" and good citizenry. The act is a consolidation of House Bill No. 5410 and Senate Bill No. 3281.In the last quarter of 2013, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines) had issued 100-Peso banknotes with an overprint of the Centennial logo of the INC to commemorate its 100th founding anniversary. The commemorative banknotes were printed, distributed and circulated throughout the country.On July 2, 2014, Philippine president Aquino made a proclamation through Proclamation No. 815 to declare the year 2014 as "Iglesia ni Cristo Centennial Year". The proclamation was issued to "enhance public awareness" on the contributions of INC to national development.On July 24, 2014, the Philippine government, through the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, installed a “national historical marker” inside the INC Central Office grounds along Commonwealth Avenue in Diliman, Quezon City. With the historical marker installed inside the INC Central Office, the site has now become part of “historical ground” recognized by the Philippine government which mandates its preservation.Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism described INC as a "most powerful union" in the Philippines.Meanwhile, Al Jazeera, a Doha-based broadcasting network, described INC as a "state within a state", saying that it is "an autonomous entity of its own, taking care of its members in remote areas where government presence is scarce, and plugging the gaping hole in terms of basic services that remain woefully lacking in many communities in the archipelago". Furthermore, it was described that the INC "have expanded their influence beyond their membership, and so the group today can be considered to be at par with political parties or national political groups." The inaugural ceremony of INC's Ciudad de Victoria according to them resembled a state visit more than a simple religious gathering.Reception from other religions[edit]Karl Keating, the founder of Catholic Answers said in 1990 that the INC engages in anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism in its God's Message magazine. Keating views the church as being built on a set of anti-Catholic doctrines, and that their lessons, as well as their God's Message magazine are dedicated more to debunking Catholic and Protestant beliefs and doctrines than to explaining their own positions.Let Us Reason Ministries, an online apologetics research group, has challenged the Iglesia ni Cristo's doctrines that one can only receive salvation if they are a member of the INC, and for saying that the INC has the sole authority from God to interpret and preach the Bible, while other religions do not.They also say that the Iglesia ni Cristo fallaciously misinterprets Biblical passages in order to suit their doctrines.In a 1984 issue of the Iglesia ni Cristo's God's Message magazine, authors quote Charles Caldwell Ryrie's commentary in his Ryrie Study Bible on John 1:1 as being an example of a Protestant theologian supportive of their nontrinitarian doctrine that Jesus Christ is distinct from God. However, Ryrie has stated that the quotation was taken out of context, and that he believes in the Trinity.Meanwhile, the Members Church of God International, another Christian denomination based in the Philippines, has had a history of conflicts with the INC.