Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Actually it's quite amusing you're impressed with a couple of Ph.D's yet automatically dismiss scientific consensus.

Did you know that you can get a PhD on the Eurovision song contest, bread, and Pastoral Care and Counseling among a myriad of other topics, blue?

Of course he didn't. He's not that bright you know.

Teakdoor CSI

featuring Prattmaster ENT, Prattmaster Dapper and Prattmaster rpeter65

Dedicated to uncovering irrational explanations to every event and heroically
defending them against the onslaught of physics, rational logic and evidence

I like it.

While you twats keeping moaning and groaning about GW and doing absolutely feck all except spew out more CO2 tapping away on your plastic cubes, this non-believer will be installing another solar power system on my new plot.

Ironic, innit!

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

While you twats keeping moaning and groaning about GW and doing absolutely feck all except spew out more CO2 tapping away on your plastic cubes, this non-believer will be installing another solar power system on my new plot.

Ironic, innit!

Did you order your 25 year supply of meatloaf and water purifiers yet?

^if he's buying from alex jones.... if think its more 25 years of almond granola.... which would have you wishing for death after 25 days let alone 25 years.

Originally Posted by BobR

The SCOTUS has put Obama's climate change agreements on hold, but more significantly this is also the first time in American History that the Court has blocked a Federal Law before it's merits had been ruled on by the lower courts. Usually the Supreme Court only hears appeals that have worked their way up through the Federal Court system, this is unprecedented.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered EPA to halt implementation of its Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule—the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate strategy—while challenges to the rule work their way through the courts. Legal experts say this is the first time the Court has preemptively stayed a regulation pending legal challenge.

Forbes Welcome

How ‘bout that, a George W. Bush appointee

An Attempt To Let Coal Plants Emit Unlimited Mercury Was Just Shut Down By SCOTUS

Regulations that limit heavy metal pollution from oil- and coal-fired power plants will continue to be enforced by the EPA — at least for now — thanks to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

On Thursday, Roberts unilaterally rejected a petition from 20 conservative-led states asking the court to temporarily halt the regulations. Halting the regulations would effectively allow power plants to emit unlimited mercury, arsenic, chromium, and other toxic heavy metals into the environment.

Led by Michigan, the states had asked the Supreme Court to stay the Mercury Air Toxics Standard — commonly referred to as MATS — while the D.C. Circuit court considers its legality. Last summer, the Supreme Court found that the EPA had not properly considered how much the rule would cost power plant operators, and ordered the EPA to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

That analysis is expected to be done in mid-April, and then the D.C. Circuit is expected to take up the case. In other words, the regulations could still be struck down, depending on that court’s decision.

The states, however, argue that one month is too long to wait. At an estimated price tag of $9.6 billion per year, the rule is one of the most expensive EPA regulations in history. Some coal plants have already chosen to shut down rather than comply.

But the EPA argues that the costs will eventually be outweighed by benefits to public health. Due to reductions in harmful pollution, the agency argues, up to 11,000 premature deaths would be prevented every year; IQ loss to children exposed to mercury in the womb would be reduced; and annual monetized benefits would be between $37 billion and $90 billion.

On Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts decided to reject the states’ petition himself, rather than take it to the full court. That may have been because recently-deceased Justice Antonin Scalia led last summer’s decision, and a full court hearing would likely have resulted in a 4-4 split, which would have effectively rejected the petition anyway.

Coal- and oil-fired power plants are the largest industrial sources of toxic air pollution in the country, according to the EPA. Power plants are responsible for 50 percent of all U.S. emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin particularly dangerous to unborn children.

What is it with the Republicans and poisoning people FFS.

harry, you dont read to good its simple's

Originally Posted by S Landreth

IQ loss to children exposed to mercury in the womb would be reduced

You see GOP are facing an electoral time bomb in that their electorate is getting old and will die. They have worked out that since the EPA stopped GOP's sponcers from damaging the brains of american children.... they have creating generations who are simply not stupid enough to fall for GOP's bullshit in sufficient numbers to keep it in office.

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ‘Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere’

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJanuary 7, 2014 11:09 AM

Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer rejected the media and some scientists claims that the record U.S. cold is due to man-made global warming. Happer, explained the science in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.
“Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Happer said in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.
Happer continued: “Here is a thumbnail sketch of the physics. The poles have little sunshine even in summer, but especially in winter, like now in the Arctic. So the air over the poles rapidly gets bitterly cold because of radiation to dark space, with negligible replenishment of heat from sunlight. The sinking cold air is replaced by warmer air flowing in from the south at high altitudes. Since the earth is rotating, the air flowing in from the south has to start rotating faster to the west, just like a figure skater rotates faster if she pulls in her arms. This forms the polar vortex. The extremely cold air at the bottom of the vortex can be carried south by meanders of the jet stream at the edge of the vortex. We will have to live with polar vortices as long as the sun shines and the earth rotates.
Like any fluid system at “high Reynolds number,” the jet stream is highly unstable, and from time to time it develops meanders to low latitudes, like the one we have had the past few days. About this time of year in 1777, just before the Battle of Princeton, there was a similar sequence. On January 2, Cornwallis’s men marched south from New York City through cold rain and muddy roads to try to trap George Washington and his little Continental Army in Trenton . On the night of January 2-3, a polar vortex swept across New Jersey, with snow and a very hard freeze. Aided by the extremely cold weather, Washington was able to evacuate his troops and artillery over newly frozen roads and to avoid Cornwallis’s encirclement. Reaching Princeton on the viciously cold morning of January 3, Washington won another battle against the British and escaped to winter quarters in Morristown. Thank you polar vortex!


Read more: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ?Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere? | Climate Depot


Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global ...
Climate Depot | A project of CFACT › 2014/01/07 › p...

Happer should stick to Atomic Physics.

In December 2015 Happer was caught in a sting by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science | Environment | The Guardian

Credibility on climate change = less than zero.

Opinion
The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
FEB 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PM 320,324 VIEWS
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis





James Taylor , CONTRIBUTOR
I write about energy and environment issues.
FOLLOW ON FORBES (244)

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

Recommended by Forbes
EYVoice: What Makes A Unicorn: 3 Secrets From Farfetch

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
EYVoice: What Makes A Unicorn: 3 Secrets From Farfetch

Is It Hollywood Or Washington? Global Warming Activists Control Government Climate...
The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims
Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records
MOST POPULAR Photos: Top College In Every State
How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey
MOST POPULAR Photos: The 10 Happiest And Unhappiest Jobs

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

I getting worried about you rperts. When i labelled you one of TD CSI's prattmasters you beat stiff competition from psudo and a few others. Your performance today has been lack luster... however given this two posts of utter bollocks.... your appointment is for the time being quite secure.

this particual perl of scat from the prattlist is an survey of 'professionals' working in the oil industry.... hardly a surprise that they don't think climent change is real.

its a bit like surveying category 42 prisoners and finding the that the majority of men think fucking children is ok.

It's funny, you tell him he's posting shit without understanding how rubbish it is and he still keeps on doing it.

Thick as shit that lad.

He's a born again Christian. What he wants to believe is always going to trump things like actual facts.

Plus, yes, he's as thick as shit.

Coming soon: Repeater will respond with a stupid/pointless/vapid/specious/spurious 'question'...

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ‘Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere’

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJanuary 7, 2014 11:09 AM

Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer rejected the media and some scientists claims that the record U.S. cold is due to man-made global warming. Happer, explained the science in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.
“Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Happer said in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.
Happer continued: “Here is a thumbnail sketch of the physics. The poles have little sunshine even in summer, but especially in winter, like now in the Arctic. So the air over the poles rapidly gets bitterly cold because of radiation to dark space, with negligible replenishment of heat from sunlight. The sinking cold air is replaced by warmer air flowing in from the south at high altitudes. Since the earth is rotating, the air flowing in from the south has to start rotating faster to the west, just like a figure skater rotates faster if she pulls in her arms. This forms the polar vortex. The extremely cold air at the bottom of the vortex can be carried south by meanders of the jet stream at the edge of the vortex. We will have to live with polar vortices as long as the sun shines and the earth rotates.
Like any fluid system at “high Reynolds number,” the jet stream is highly unstable, and from time to time it develops meanders to low latitudes, like the one we have had the past few days. About this time of year in 1777, just before the Battle of Princeton, there was a similar sequence. On January 2, Cornwallis’s men marched south from New York City through cold rain and muddy roads to try to trap George Washington and his little Continental Army in Trenton . On the night of January 2-3, a polar vortex swept across New Jersey, with snow and a very hard freeze. Aided by the extremely cold weather, Washington was able to evacuate his troops and artillery over newly frozen roads and to avoid Cornwallis’s encirclement. Reaching Princeton on the viciously cold morning of January 3, Washington won another battle against the British and escaped to winter quarters in Morristown. Thank you polar vortex!


Read more: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold: ?Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere? | Climate Depot


Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global ...
Climate Depot | A project of CFACT › 2014/01/07 › p...

Bend over because once again your bogus article is about to be destroyed...


Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding



Leading climate sceptic who will testify at Ted Cruz senate hearing today agrees to write pro-fossil fuel paper secretly funded by oil company
A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.


Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.


The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.


Citing industry-funded documents – including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles – Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”


Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.
Happer is due to appear this afternoon as a star witness in Senate hearings called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.


In emails to reporters he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money being paid to a climate-sceptic think tank.




The investigation also found:

• US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.
• The Donors Trust, an organisation that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern oil and gas company to US climate sceptic organisations.
• Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.
• A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley - a senior figure in the organisation.

The findings echo the case of Willie Soon, who was the subject of an investigation published in the New York Times earlier this year. The investigation revealed that Soon had accepted donations from fossil fuel companies and anonymous donors in return for producing climate-sceptic scientific papers. He described his studies as “deliverables” and failed to declare who paid for the research.
The revelations also follow a series of reports showing fossil fuel companies burying the truth about climate change, while funding flawed research to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.
Academics for hire
Reporters approached the academics claiming to be representatives of unnamed fossil fuel companies – one, a Middle Eastern oil and gas exploration company, the other a coal mining firm based in Indonesia – looking to commission “independent” research.

“In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.” – Professor Frank Clemente

The individuals approached have previously been linked to fossil fuel companies or climate sceptic organisations that have received fossil fuel funding.


Professor Frank Clemente, a sociologist from Penn State university, was asked if he could produce a report “to counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the World Health Organization’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution)”.


He said that this was within his skill set; that he could be quoted using his university job title; and that it would cost around $15,000 for an 8–10 page paper. He also explained that he charged $6,000 for writing a newspaper op-ed.
When asked whether he would need to declare where the money came from, Professor Clemente said: “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US.”



Clemente is a favorite of the coal industry and particularly Peabody Energy, which regularly uses his research as evidence of the need for an expansion of coal power in developing countries.



n the exchange Clemente disclosed that for another report on “the Global Value of Coal” he was paid $50,000 by Peabody Energy – the sponsorship was mentioned in the small print of the paper, but the amount has not been disclosed until now.
Following the report Clemente produced an op-ed arguing against the coal divestment movement in universities, which was picked up by over 50 newspapers across the US. But as Clemente told undercover reporters: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”
Professor Clemente failed to respond to requests for comment.


Investigators also approached Professor William Happer of Princeton University, who is chairman of the climate sceptic George Marshall Institute and a former Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy under the first President Bush where he “supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change”.



Professor Happer, who is a physicist rather than a climatologist, told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour. He asked that the money be paid to climate sceptic campaign group, the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member.
Happer described his work on carbon dioxide as a “labor of love” and said that while other pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels are a problem, in his opinion “More CO2 will benefit the world”, adding “The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”
When reporters asked if it would be possible for the fossil fuel client’s role in commissioning the research to remain hidden, in order to give the work more credibility, Happer replied that: “If I write the paper alone, I don’t think there would be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial compensation for this essay.’”
Happer also disclosed that Peabody Energy paid $8,000 in return for his testimony in crucial Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. This fee was also paid to the CO2 Coalition.

“I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.” – Professor Happer

The academics’ willingness to conceal the source of funding contrasts strongly with the ethics of journals such as Science, which states in its submission requirements that research “should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of their affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias”.


Late last month Happer appeared at a climate sceptic summit in Texas. There he defended CO2 production saying: “Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” He went on to say, “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal”.

Hiding the money trail

The investigation has also revealed a system by which oil and gas companies can anonymously fund US climate-sceptic scientists and organisations.
When asked to ensure that the commissioning of the report could not be traced back to the Middle East oil and gas company, Professor Happer contacted his fellow CO2 Coalition board member, Bill O’Keefe, explaining: “I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.”


O’Keefe, a former Exxon lobbyist, suggested channelling it through the Donors Trust, a controversial organisation that has previously been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the US conservative movement.


The organisation has a long history of channelling funding to US climate sceptics, including controversial professor Willie Soon, and some of the most influential organisations in the US conservative movement, including Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.


When investigators asked Peter Lipsett of the Donors Trust if the Trust would accept money from an oil and gas company based in the Middle East, he said that, although the Trust would need the cash to come from a US bank account, “we can take it from a foreign body, it’s just we have to be extra cautious with that.”
He added that: “I’ll double check everything and make sure I’m wording things correctly after chatting with our CFO [Chief Financial Officer], but what he’s told me before is that the preference is to have it in US dollars, and the ideal preference is to have it originate from a US source, but the US dollars is the important bit”.


Peter Lipsett is director of growth strategies at the Donors Trust and has worked in a senior position for Charles Koch, and before that Koch Industries for almost a decade. When contacted for on the record comment, Mr Lipsett said:
“We only accept donations in U.S. currency and drawn from U.S. banks. Donors Trust has never accepted secret donations from foreign donors. We have supported over 1,500 organizations representing the arts, medicine and science, public policy, education, religion, and civics. We are no more a “middle man” between donors and their causes than any other community or commercial donor-advised fund sponsoring organization”.
Mr O’Keefe said: “As a matter of personal policy, I do not respond to requests such as yours.”
Peer review
As well as exposing how fossil fuel companies are able to anonymously commission scientific research, Greenpeace can reveal details of a so-called “peer review” process being operated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank.
Sense About Science, a UK charitable trust, describes peer review as the process by which “scientists submit their research findings to a journal, which sends them out to be assessed for competence, significance and originality, by independent qualified experts who are researching and publishing work in the same field (peers).” The process usually involves varying degrees of anonymity.

“I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.” – Professor Happer

Professor Happer, who sits on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed”. Happer explained that this process had consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.



He added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”
GWPF’s “peer review” process was used for a recent GWPF report on the benefits of carbon dioxide. According to Dr Indur Goklany, the author of the report, he was initially encouraged to write it by the journalist Matt Ridley, who is also a GWPF academic advisor. That report was then promoted by Ridley, who claimed in his Times column that the paper had been “thoroughly peer reviewed”.
Sense About Science, which lists Ridley as a member of its Advisory Council, has warned against such review processes, saying: “sometimes organisations or individuals claim to have put their studies through peer review when, on inspection, they have only shown it to some colleagues. Such claims are usually made in the context of a campaign directed at the public or policy makers, as a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.”


The organisation also says that: “reporters or advocates citing these sources as peer reviewed would show themselves to be biased or uninformed”.


Professor Happer claimed that the review of the paper was “more rigorous than the peer review for most journals”. But he also told undercover reporters that he believed most members of the Academic Advisory Council had been too busy to comment on the paper:


“I know that the entire scientific advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was asked to submit comments on the first draft. I am also sure that most were too busy to respond,” he said.
Professor Happer also noted that submitting a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide to a peer-reviewed scientific journal would be problematic.
“That might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly [as] your client would also like,” he said.
When asked about the review process behind Dr Goklany’s report, GWPF explained that the report had gone for review to other chosen scientists beyond just those in their Advisory Council and that: “the quality of Dr Goklany’s report is self-evident to any open-minded reader.”

Peabody Energy

The investigation raises further questions for coal giant Peabody Energy, which earlier this year was investigated by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman over accusations that they violated New York laws prohibiting false and misleading conduct, in relation to misleading statements on the risks it could face from tightening climate change laws. Peabody have now agreed to change the way it reports the risks posed to investors by climate change.


Professors Clemente and Happer were both employed by Peabody to provide testimony favourable to the company in state and governmental hearings. The company paid $8,000 for Professor Happer to make the case on the social costs of carbon.


Other prominent climate sceptics who provided testimony in the Minnesota hearing on behalf of Peabody included: Roy Spencer who told Greenpeace he was paid $4,000 by Peabody; Richard Tol who said he was not paid and Richard Lindzen and Robert Mendelsohn who failed to reply to questions. Tol, Lindzen and Mendelsohn are all members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council.


Both Penn State and Princeton University declined to comment.


The GWPF said: “Professor Happer made his scientific views clear from the outset, including the need to address pollution problems arising from fossil fuel consumption. Any insinuation against his integrity as a scientist is outrageous and is clearly refuted by the correspondence.


“Nor did Professor Happer offer to put a report “commissioned by a fossil fuel company” through the GWPF peer review process. This is a sheer fabrication by Greenpeace.


“The cack-handed attempt by Greenpeace to manufacture a scandal around Dr Goklany’s report, and to smear Professor Happer’s reputation, only points to the need for the Global Warming Policy Foundation to redouble its efforts to bring balanced, rigorous and apolitical research on climate and energy policy issues to the public’s attention, as counter to the misleading noise and activist rhetoric from groups like Greenpeace.”


Journalist and GWPF Academic Advisor, Matt Ridley, did not respond to requests for comment.


Read the emails with Professor Frank Clemente

Read the emails with Professor Happer and the Donors Trust



https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...mics-for-hire/

So I read this entire article to learn money was paid to an organization Harper supports and the money came from an oil company. What I see here is you and your libtard buddies believe any report written by pro oil people are bogus, sure these articles can imply this posses a problem, but where does the money come from that support the climate alarmist you and I both know they are not doing their work because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Who pays them.
You seem to be saying the oil industry has no right to pay for studies defending their industries, hog wash, where the money came from to prepare the paper should have know bearing on the paper, what should have everything to do with the paper are the facts of the paper. Are they true or false.
You libtards jump at every chance to some how discredit these authors rather than take on the issues. What I see in your response is pretty much meaningless.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

What I see here is you and your libtard buddies believe any report written by pro oil people are bogus

Pro oil? They are being paid by big oil to lie you moron.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

but where does the money come from that support the climate alarmist you and I both know they are not doing their work because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Who pays them.

No one pays them other than the University they work for. They are not getting rich. They are scientists who live modest lives and are just telling the truth unlike the idiot sources you post from.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

what should have everything to do with the paper are the facts of the paper. Are they true or false.

Once again you prove yourself to be illiterate. I have no idea what that sentence means.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You libtards jump at every chance to some how discredit these authors rather than take on the issues. What I see in your response is pretty much meaningless.

There is no issue to take on. You choose to be a lemming. You do not want the truth. You are a typical Republican. Dumb as rocks, asleep at the wheel voting in Trump.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Pro oil? They are being paid by big oil to lie......

Originally Posted by RPETER65

...money ... that support the climate alarmist...Who pays them.

No one pays them,...... other than the University they work for. They are not getting rich.

They are scientists who live modest lives and are just telling the truth unlike the idiot sources you post from.

You choose to be a lemming. You do not want the truth.Dumb as rocks, asleep at the wheel ....

Lovely stuff,...green sent.

Originally Posted by bsnub

No one pays them other than the University they work for

yeah right .....apart from BIG WIND etc

Originally Posted by bsnub

They are not getting rich.

They getting a lot richer than if they told the truth about co2, in which case they would be ostracized and end up flipping burgers

Originally Posted by bsnub

They are scientists who live modest lives and are just telling the truth

They are loud mouthed pigs with their snouts in the PC grant trough .
The truth ? more like the party line

Originally Posted by bsnub

voting in Trump

Got to be better than that fag hag duo Billary Clinton.

Bring Trump on , lets get Co2 up to 500 ppm and see if we can melt that nasty ice.
I'll then move to Greenland to get away from the lower race riff raff invading Europe.

Temperature fabricationits aka supporters the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism, the anti-science cult, caught telling porkies again

Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - Go Fabricate Figure.

Global Warming "Science": New Study Reveals Large Temperature Fabrication By Cherry-Pick

Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.
Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.
For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.
The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.
So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?
It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.
(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)
The end result?
The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.
And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.
Further analysis of the new RSS "empirical" evidence is discussed here, here, here, and here.
Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.
Note: Excel used to plot the RSS v3.3 and v4.0 mid-troposphere datasets, including the 60-month averages.


March 05, 2016 at 05:24 AM | Permalink


C3: Global Warming "Science": New Study Reveals Large Temperature Fabrication By Cherry-Pick