Cover Letters - The Career Center - The University Of Alabama: Fill & Download for Free

Thomas Johnson gets it about right. Even non-elite universities are in an arms race to seem attractive to students who might apply. You might argue, with some justice, that this is the university's fault, but it references a much larger problem. Today's students want dorm rooms that are at least as good (ideally better) than their bedroom at home, a new fitness center that looks great even if most students use it only a few times, and Internet speeds much better than at home. Parents also demand more from students services -- career centers, health and especially psychiatry availability, etc.Athletics are a financial problem. Only 5 or 10 universities actually break even or have a profit -- the usual suspects (Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, etc.). Donations that arguably would not go to academic purposes (although there's no good data that this is the case) make up part. But most universities are out of pocket a significant amount. Why? Because the alumni demand it, and guess what? Students like to attend schools with good jock teams. When you have a head football coach making more than the president, usually by a significant amount, you've got problems. Financial aid to jocks is a huge expense, partially covered by endowment and donations but a double cost to the university which has to come up with the scholarship money for the jocks and loses the opportunity to have tuition paying students fill their places.Universities need new buildings with new technology and in the case of science buildings to house the latest equipment. Classrooms that are often hard to fit into building plans are very expensive. Guess what? Universities that have smaller classes require more classrooms. Gone are the days when a builder came in, looked around and built a functional building that more or less matched the rest of the buildings. Architects (often famous ones) cost money; they build pretty buildings. I'm guessing that building supplies have risen more than the general cost of living.Utilities have risen dramatically, and again much more than cost of living generally.Library costs have gone up exponentially. It's not uncommon for major scientific journals to cost $3000 or $4000 a year as subscriptions. All institutions that sponsor journals charge far more for library subscriptions than for individual. Well, let's just go all electronic. Makes sense. Yes, except the charges for electronic subscriptions are usually the same as for paper and often require that the library purchase paper copies to get the on-line stuff. Has anyone noticed that books seem to cost a whole lot more now than then. Well they do, and the rise is more than inflation. Students who used to buy a semester's load of books for $100 now sometimes pay double that amount for one book -- science texts often even more (and, no, Kindle will not solve that problem) Book budgets for libraries have again risen faster than inflation, much faster.Most of a university's budget goes for salaries. Faculty are now paid a living wage, some would argue too handsomely. Some faculty get really high salaries, but it costs big bucks to get a famous person on board. Why does that matter? Arms race, again. On the other hand, famous faculty attract other famous faculty, and more research money, and better graduate students, and, also, better undergraduates, perhaps for the wrong reasons. Many students (and their parents) like the possibility that they can take a class with a Nobel Prize winner, but in many places will never lay eyes on him or her. And while we're on salaries don't forget to add in contributions to retirement and health care, which seems to be going up at a rapid rate.Administrative costs at universities have risen dramatically as they have at almost all other organizations. Partially that's because of increased reporting responsibilities, more regulations, etc. At my former university when I arrived in 1989 the legal staff was one half time person borrowed from a major law firm in town. Now there is a whole office with several lawyer, all paid living wages I assume. I frankly have no idea what they do, but I'm pretty sure that they're busy. In fact I know they are.Several people have pointed to research costs. That's difficult to access. In most major universities research is largely funded by outside grants and is therefore self-supporting. In addition most grants come with indirect costs theoretically to support utilities, library costs etc. It's a big source of income, and major research universities would fold without indirect costs. There are other research costs, of course. Some graduate students may not have stipends that are fully covered by grants. and the university picks up the tab. Typically graduate students pay no tuition or it is paid by a funding agency. That makes graduate education very expensive as faculty devote more time to non-tuition paying students than those who pay (like undergraduates). Labs are built and remodeled by the university. New faculty off get substantial start-up costs to get their research off and running. There are, of course also research costs in the humanities although not nearly as much.Computer costs. Don't get me started. Faculty typically get a personal computer, but usually not top of the line. But the big expense is in maintaining the campus network and connections to the Internet. Gotta have it for research, for instruction, and to appeal to students. Classrooms have to be wired with the latest and greatest.And speaking of graduate education most law schools and business schools are self-supporting although not necessarily when utilities, maintenance., etc is included. Medical school lose incredible amounts of money although you need a PhD in accounting to try to figure out what medical education costs. It's complicated, but no matter how you do the spread sheet, medical schools are money swamps.Tuition costs a lot, but at most elite and semi-elite places something between one-third and one half of tuition is given back by scholarships, some externally funded, but at most places the university simply eats the expense. Some financial aid is in the form of loans or work, but many places put a cap on how much scholarship aid can be loans.As others have pointed out American universities not only look better (and often for good reasons), have better labs and libraries, what I'll call amenities are much better, dorms exist (which is often not the case in other countries) and are generally pretty nice, and faculty salaries relative to averages are higher. Of course, in US universities students actually attend classes (well at least sometimes) and don't end up in crowded lecture halls with little chance of access to instructors or even the ability to be able to take courses they need because they are over-enrolled.. Kids here have it much better, perhaps that's good, perhaps not. But that's what the market demands. And it's probably good generally.It has become a mantra of conservatives that the problem is the easy availability of loans. Because students can get easy money to pay for their expenses universities have no incentive to curtail costs. That's is very simplistic and mostly wrong. Universities don't run on money provided by student loans. Tuition (whether from loans or parents) typically pays about 25% of the cost of universities. The part supported by loans is some fraction of that and although it's not a trivial part of the budget, it's not a major part either. The fantasy (and it is that) seems to be that if we didn't give students loans, suddenly kids would stop applying and colleges would be forced through some logic of supply and demand to lower costs. Unfortunately it simply won't work generally. If everyone had to pay the full cost state universities and less elite ones probably would suffer a decline in applications and enrollments. However, most costs are not easily lowered. The easiest place would be in terms of building maintenance and salaries. The former means just kicking a can down the street, and if faculty salaries were frozen or, god forbid lowered, many would leave the profession or gravitate to places where they could make more money. Good riddance? Well, not really. We really don't need that kind of brain drain, already a major problem in the sciences. But the major solution, already occurring, is that instead of paying professors say $100,000 a year we'll hire adjuncts or graduate students to do the teaching. So let's do the math. Our mythical tenured professor teaches say 5 classes (although most teach fewer especially at the more elite universities) so that works out to $20,000 a class. But we can hire an adjunct for maybe as low as $5000 a class (what my previous university paid), and you don't have to have a degree in higher math to see where that's going. Also you don't have to pay retirement or health insurance, which adds something on the order of 20% to the salary of our professor. Now I should be very clear that many adjuncts work harder at teaching that tenure-track faculty and some are actually more effective at it. But they can't write effective letters of recommendation, provide research opportunities or even spend much time with students out of class as they rush from one teaching assignment to another.If we reduced loan opportunities the Harvards and Stanfords would still flourish quite nicely although they would probably be even more populated by rich kids. There are always going to be parents who are willing to pay almost anything so that they can have bragging rights about where their children go. It's hard to predict what might happen at state universities, but certainly the general consensus has been that education at such places has generally worsened once states stopped contributing as much. Cutting costs isn't going to make things better -- just cheaper. There seems to be some assumption that university administrations raise tuition on what amounts to a whim without worrying about the effects on their students. Nothing could be further from the truth. Raising tuition is usually an agonizing decision,, and one not taken lightly.Cutting down loan possibilities as a way of putting pressure on universities is about the same as cutting government spending to reduce the deficit. In principle that sounds great, but in practice it's hard to get agreement on what to cut and most of the items that are easiest to cut have little impact on over-all spending. For better or worse in some important respects higher education is beyond the laws of supply and demand. In that it's like American medicine.There's much more to be said, and I agree that in some ways higher education is out of wack or at least has screwy priorities. But it's hard to make education cheaper, and college administrators spend a huge amount of their time trying to figure out ways to lower costs within the various constraints they have. There are some things we could do to make education cheaper, but most would decrease the perceived and probably real benefits. What we might do is for a different discussion but curtaining loans is not a good idea because it would not solve the problem and would make it harder for poor kids, who most need the education, to go to college.ADDITION 3/12/19: Recently Rice University announced a policy of free tuition for children from families that make less than $130,000/yr, and no tuition or room and board fees for those making less than $65,000/yr. Students who come from families making less than $200,000/yr will also not be required to take out loans although they will be expected to earn money during the summer or while on campus. Most elite universities have adopted similar programs. At Rice tuition is $47000, room & board $14000, fees are $745, and books $1200. Harvard, Stanford, etc. are slightly greater.Of course, many private colleges are more dependent on tuition income and cannot afford to be so generous, but even there financial aid often covers a substantial part of costs. State universities, of course, are much cheaper and generally have fewer resources to offset tuition. In that regard it’s important to note that one reason tuition has risen so fast at state universities is because almost all state legislatures have cut their support of higher education dramatically. As one example, in 1984 the state of Texas paid 47% of the costs of the budget at the University of Texas, with tuition accounting for 5%; in 2018 the state paid 12% and tuition revenues 21%. Now there is a legitimate argument that students who benefit from a college degree should pay for it rather than the state. But that is short-sighted since the entire state benefits from having well educated folks around and about. By the same logic, I who have no children in elementary and high school should not be “forced” to pay for the education of the children across the street who go to public schools. Historically Americans have always believed that support for education provided general benefits and should be paid by all. At any rate, the primary reason for rising costs at state universities has been the decreasing support from the state. Whether that is fair or wise can be debated.

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/climate/2021/march2021/GTR_202103Mar_1.docxTheir trend is 0.14 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 OUR C02 CAUSES WARMING:" 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 surface".https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/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/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/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/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/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?

CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS (Read it, it may save your life)A quote worth sharing“The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government”. 'Us'. - Rob Bilott (Dark Waters)The Man who cured CancerForgotten Genius: “Royal Raymond Rife”The inventor and his invaluable contributions to imaging and medical microscopyScience has known for quite some time that all things vibrate at their own personal frequency. Certain emotions sustained over time can change our vibrational frequencies and manifest in illness. Recently I read an article that explained how current research is using resonant frequency to destroy cancer cells. As exciting as that prospect is, it’s not a new approach. Royal Raymond Rife made an invaluable contribution to medical microscopes.As a scientist, inventor, and engineer, particularly in imaging and medical microscopy, Royal Raymond Rife was a genius. He was to medical optics what Nikola Tesla was to physics. In 1913, industrial tycoon Henry Timken of the Timken Roller Bearing Company in Canton, Ohio, sought Rife’s help to solve a manufacturing problem. The solution was a scanning machine that could evaluate the quality of the steel used in the company’s roller bearings before going into production. The scanner improved the quality of the company’s products and streamlined production to such a degree that Timken was overjoyed. When he learned that Rife’s passion was medical imaging, Timken gave him his full financial support and set him up at the family’s estate in San Diego to create his personal lab. No expense was too great and nothing was held back.Rife’s previous work had led him to believe that microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and parasites) were at the root of all disease. To prove his theory, he had to see these pathogens in their live state during his experiments, some of which were so small, particularly viruses, that no imaging equipment existed that could come close to viewing them. That wasn’t a stumbling block to Rife. As a mechanical engineer and microscopy expert, he built a microscope that could magnify 60,000 times, and the superior magnification was equaled by its resolution. The microorganisms Rife was viewing were so infinitesimally small that the atoms in the chemical stain normally used to expose microorganisms would have obscured them. Instead Rife’s microscope used monochromatic light that caused the organism to fluoresce. Rife could identify the virus he was observing by the color it refracted.Years later in 1944, both the “Journal of the Franklin Institute for Scientific and Mechanical Arts and The Smithsonian” featured the Rife Universal Microscope alongside the newly created electron microscope in articles on emerging technology in optics. In The Smithsonian article entitled “The New Microscopes,” three micrographs from the Rife Universal Microscope were printed. The resolution of those images was unmatched by any existing technology, including the electron microscope. In fact they’re still unmatched even by today’s technology. What’s more, those images were taken ten years prior by Rife in 1934. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. The other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image. Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come. Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wavThe other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image.Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come.Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it.Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. This allowed the frequency wave to penetrate deeply into the body with scalpel-like precision. Because the wave was precisely tuned to the frequency of the microorganism, only the pathogen was affected, leaving the surrounding tissue unharmed.Rife considered a disease cured when he could destroy a microorganism ten consecutive times using what he called its Mortal Oscillatory Rate (MOR). His surviving records show he found the MOR for 24 microorganisms including anthrax, cholera, tetanus, B. coli, influenza, spinal meningitis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, gonorrhea, leprosy, streptococcus, conjunctivitis, bubonic plague, staphylococcus, diphtheria, and typhoid.It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year.By now Rife’s accomplishments were attracting a lot of attention from the press and he was working with the most respected medical experts of the day. These included Dr. E. C. Rosenow, bacteriologist and head of the pathology department at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Arthur Kendall, bacteriologist at Northwestern University, Dr. Milbank Johnson of the University of Southern California (USC) and head of the Medical Society of California, Lee De Forrest, technology scientist, and William D. Coolidge, physicist.Unfortunately Rife was also attracting a lot of negative press, mainly from the FDA, American Medical Association, medical establishment and Harvard University. To prove his detractors wrong, he along with Dr. Rosenow invited several of Rife’s most prestigious but severest critics to a demonstration where he destroyed the poliomyelitis virus with its MOR (Mortal Oscillatory Rate) in 1932, twenty years before the vaccine was invented and thirty years before it became available to the public.Hidden beneath his critics’ astonishment at what they’d seen was panic. They knew Rife’s microscope and beam-ray technology would mean the loss of billions of dollars to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutes, not to mention the overnight elimination of entire fields of medical science and research, as well as the discrediting of thousands of careers of the most highly respected university and medical center physicians, scientists and administrators. Just days after the demonstration, Dr. Rosenow was fired from his position at the Mayo Clinic, and the fix was in to bury Rife’s research.Uneasy about Dr. Rosenow’s fate and what might be brewing for him behind the scenes, Rife pressed on. He knew a microorganism was at the root of cancer and was determined to find it. That same year, he discovered a virus in a breast tumor that he called the BX virus. Even more, he found the BX virus to be pleomorphic, meaning that it changed form based on its terrain. He discovered its MOR and was able to destroy it.Never having used his beam ray on a living creature, Rife introduced the BX virus into rats. Sure enough, they developed huge tumors. Using his beam ray to expose the tumors to their MOR, Rife was able to completely heal the rats. Seeing these incredible results, Dr. Johnson from USC insisted that it was time to try the beam ray on human patients. Rife was apprehensive, but insisted that if they were to have human trials, a research committee comprised of physicians at the top of the most prestigious medical associations had to be part of the proceedings. Dr. Johnson agreed and pulled a committee together that even included Dr. Alvin Ford, President of the American Association of Pathologists, a member Rife specifically requested.The trials included 16 terminally ill patients with various cancers and were conducted at the Ella Scripps mansion and estate in La Jolla, CA in 1934. In just 70 days, the committee declared the first 14 patients cured of their cancer. The remaining two were declared cured three weeks later. Incredibly, the patients only required two 3-minute sessions per week to achieve total recovery. Rife found that more-frequent sessions didn’t allow the lymphatic system enough time to take up the released toxins from the destroyed virus and remove them from the body.Later that year, a black tie banquet was held to honor Rife and “Celebrate the End of All Disease.” Less than 15 years later, however, none of the people at that dinner would even admit to knowing Rife, who would be left in poverty with his career ruined. His five microscopes would be confiscated along with the majority of his records and the two known beam-ray machines in existence. Today scientists are still struggling to recreate Rife’s technology from the remnants of what wasn’t destroyed of his writings.It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year. As an institution mired in politics and money, the medical establishment seems to be the worst at killing its prophets and saints. Hopefully this new generation of courageous scientists will be able to put together the pieces from an unsung genius and recreate the “end of all disease” in his memory.Hyperthermia (up to 113°F) kills cancer cell usually with minimal injury to normal tissue research should be done to channel and target it for curing cancer without damaging our brain and other organs.Watch it before it gets removed“Cancer cure coverup” Dr. S. R. Burzynski another genius who cured cancer.A pioneering medical doctor and PhD biochemist who won the largest and possibly the most convoluted legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history. Burzynski's battles were centered on his belief in Antineoplastons, a gene-targeting cancer therapy he discovered in the 1970s. The ultimate approval of Antineoplastons would mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, would hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting, life-saving medical breakthrough. Burzynski's first-person testimonials of cancer patients who chose his treatment instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation with full disclosure of original medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery.There is almost nothing about this film that isn't controversial. Even the Wikipedia entry, which is pretty tough on the doctor and his treatment, is challenged by the flims website, which claims "the Wikipedia editors refuse to allow anything that show these medicines in a positive light to be allowed to be included in the Wiki post."Watch the documentary by Eric Merola.Must watch might save someone's lifeDid you know?Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician and scientist, now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "saviour of mothers".Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing with chlorinated lime solution in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives wards.He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. He died 14 days later after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.Must ReadFor the past 27 years, Life Extension has identified life-saving medications that languished too long in the FDA’s archaic approval process.When effective new drugs are delayed, the inevitable consequence is needless human suffering and death. An equally insidious problem is the chilling effect bureaucratic roadblocks have on the development of better drugs that might actually cure the disease.Just imagine the difficulty of raising the tens of millions of dollars needed to get a new cancer drug into the approval pipeline when prospective investors see the FDA deny a drug with documented efficacy, as was done recently with Provenge. (Refer to page 7 for the complete story of the FDA’s denial of Provenge.)Another problem with the FDA’s unpredictable approval pattern is the outrageous cost of the cancer drugs that actually make it to market. Classes of cancer drugs (like anti-angiogenesis agents) that Life Extension long ago advocated are finally approved. The problem is that the out-of-pocket cost of these new drugs can exceed $12,000 per month. The media has reported on heart-wrenching stories of cancer patients who choose to die rather than send their families into bankruptcy from paying these costs.It’s easy to point fingers at drug companies for charging such extortionist prices, but the harsh reality is that getting these medications approved by the FDA is so costly and risky that the high prices can arguably be justified by the hideously inefficient drug approval process that now exists.In this article, we review a few of many drugs that have been shown to be effective against cancer, but are not yet approved by the FDA. While there are dozens of anti-cancer drugs in various stages of the approval process, the sad truth is that thousands of compounds with anti-cancer activity will never be submitted for FDA approval due to lack of patentability, lack of investor funding, or just plain unwillingness to deal with today’s cancer bureaucracy.It has become brutally apparent that the system of drug approval needs a radical overhaul. We have some specific proposals at the end of this eye-opening article.Each day, about 1,500 Americans perish from cancer. Each day, over 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with this dreaded disease.1 While the general population is relatively ignorant about medicine, virtually everyone knows that a cancer diagnosis means exposure to therapies that produce miserable—if not lethal—side effects. The public is also aware that in too many cases, government-approved therapies fail to cure the disease.*Now im gonna tell you something which you might find as a complete shocker*A conversation with the lawyer Rob Bilott is like a slap across the face. It doesn’t feel good. But it does get your attention.According to Bilott, we face a “unique health threat” from a class of industrial chemicals that most Americans have never heard of. These chemicals are widely used in everyday products such as non-stick cookware and stain-resistant fabrics, even though science show they are linked to a range of deadly diseases, reproductive problems and other ailments. Powerful corporations are fighting to protect the use of these profitable chemical compounds, Bilott says, and US regulators are doing next to nothing to stop them. It’s worth listening to what Bilott has to say. He has spent the last two decades advocating for people in West Virginia and Ohio whose water was contaminated with one of these toxins, a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.Do watch these movies if you haven't watched it yet. Based on this agenda.*Now lets get into some details*3MPFAS DANGER3M has long known it was contaminating the US food supplyMultinational manufacturer 3M, which developed two types of industrial chemical now found in the blood of virtually all Americans, has known since 2001 that those chemicals were entering the food supply, according to a newly surfaced study.That year, the company sponsored a study of several types of food from around the US. The study surfaced this week, when the Intercept’s Sharon Lerner reported that the document was on file with the US Environmental Protection Agency.3M made Scotchgard and other non-stick, waterproof, or stain-resistant products using PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in a class known as PFAS. Production of Scot ended after 2000. In 2001, 3M funded the study to test food samples from six US cities. High levels of the compounds were found in ground beef, milk, green beans and apples. The contaminated food came from Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.In a statement to Quartz, 3M said it published the report in 2001 and “shared this report with the EPA within seven days,” adding, “This report is one of thousands of documents we have placed in the public domain related to the study of PFAS chemistries. We will continue to engage with members of our communities, elected officials and regulators to share information about these chemistries,” 3M wrote.What 3M knew about PFASAs Lerner has reported, 3M knew as early as the 1970s that PFAS was accumulating in human blood, and conducted experiments on rats and monkeys that led the company to believe the compounds “should be regarded as toxic.”PFAS do not degrade in the environment. Decades of use has created a widespread and ongoing Contamination crisis. At this point, most people in the US have been exposed to chemicals in the PFAS family, of which there are as many as 5,000, and water supplies serving tens of millions are likely contaminated as well. The revelation about PFAS entering the food supply, however, is a relatively new addition to the roster of ways people have been exposed.PFAS chemicals have been linked to a range of health risks including cancer, thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, immune-system issues, and developmental problems in fetuses.Both 3M and DuPont have ceased production of PFOA and PFAS in the US, but DuPont continues to manufacture it in China. In Brazil, contamination is widespread due to a popular pesticide that degrades into PFAS. In Jordan0, researchers found PFAS in women’s breast milk at levels more than double the advised US health level. American dairy farmers have found PFAS in their milk. Other chemicals in the PFAS family, including GenX, continue to be manufactured in places like North Carolina.Decades of widespread use of PFAS for everything from waterproofing clothes to firefighting foam has made the exposure global: Health issues arising from PFAS are estimated to cost Europe 50 billion euros per year. A UN committee responsible for toxic chemical policy agreed to ban the compounds this year (the US is not party to the pact).PFAS back in the newsWord of the 19-year-old 3M study comes a week after nonprofit Environmental Working Group published a photo of a poster containing unreleased US Food and Drug Administration findings about PFAS in food. The agency detected PFAS in chocolate cake, meat, seafood, sweet potatoes, and pineapple. It was the first known test of food for PFAS by the FDA.After EWG’s poster release, the FDA published its findings along with a press release stating that the “FDA does not have any indication that these substances are a human health concern” at the levels detected, adding that the “science surrounding the potential health effects of PFAS is developing” and “current evidence suggests that the bioaccumulation of certain PFAS may cause serious health conditions.”“However, with the decrease in production and use of certain PFAS, levels in humans in the US have been declining,” the FDA added.As Lerner reports, Rob Bilott—whose 1999 lawsuit against DuPont on behalf of residents near its Teflon plant in West Virginia put PFAS contamination on the map wrote a June 11 letter to the FDA asking whether it knew about 3M’s food study before now and if how long officials knew there were high levels of the compounds in food.The FDA said in a statement that it has received Bilott’s letter “and is reviewing it at this time.”Why are highly fluorinated chemicals harmful?Highly fluorinated chemicals contain carbon-fluorine (C-F) bonds, which are some of the strongest bonds in nature. That makes them both incredibly resistant to breakdown and very useful. For instance, they can make products grease or stain-resistant, nonstick, or waterproof. However, this comes at a cost.The highly fluorinated chemicals that have been well-studied have been associated with:testicular and kidney cancerliver malfunctionhormonal changesthyroid disruptionhigh cholesterolobesityulcerative colitislower birth weight and sizeOther highly fluorinated chemicals are suspected of similarly causing health problems, but have not been well tested.Because they are resistant to breakdown, these chemicals can persist in our bodies for years. In the environment, they can last for millions of years. This means that the highly fluorinated chemicals released during our lifetimes will build up in the environment, and many future generations will be exposed to them, at even higher levels than we are today.Scientists from all over the world signed the Madrid Statement to share their concerns about highly fluorinated chemicals and are asking for a limit to the production and use of these chemicals.On May 1, 2015, the Madrid Statement was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a high-impact scientific journal.How are we exposed?Highly fluorinated chemicals are used in consumer products such as cookware, clothing, outdoor apparel, carpeting, and food packaging to provide nonstick, oil- and water resistant properties. They are also used in some kinds of cosmetics.We are exposed to them by direct contact with these products, but also through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.They have been detected at high levels in humans and wildlife all over the globe.What can you do?Ask yourself, “Do I really need products that are stain-resistant, nonstick, or waterproof?” Knowing the consequences, you might choose to give up some conveniences or product performance.Steps you can take:Avoid products that are oil repellant or stain resistant.Only purchase waterproof gear when you really need it.Avoid cosmetics with PTFE or any word containing “perfluor” or “polyfluor” on their ingredients list.Replace your Teflon nonstick cookware with cast iron, glass, or ceramic.Avoid microwave popcorn and greasy foods wrapped in paper.Tell retailers and manufacturers you want products without fluorinated chemicals.Support companies committed to phasing out highly fluorinated chemicals, such as the apparel brands that have joined Greenpeace’s detox campaign, and the fast food chains that removed them from food packaging as a result of EWG's action.If you are concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing an in-home filter on your tap. EWG summarized what is known about the efficacy of the different filter options.All products from these apparel brands are free of highly fluorinated chemicals after these dates.Look Carefully at the imagesHarsh truth is that medical facilities prioritise business rather than treatment and patient are customer for few doctor's.*SOURCES*Forgotten Genius: Royal Raymond Rife - Be Hive Of HealingHyperthermia in Cancer Treatment.Cancer Is 'Serious Business.' Is the 'Documentary'?'My Cancer Free Life'? Not So FastBurzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover-UpIgnaz Semmelweis - WikipediaThe Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare3M knew it was contaminating the food supply back in 2001Highly Fluorinated ChemicalsImage source- Google“Must Read” External LinkLife-Saving Cancer Drugs Not Approved by the FDA