The Fifth Column
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
The Failed ObamaCare: Lost Issue of the Presidential Race
The Fifth Column
The history and future of piracy and file sharing.
The history and future of piracy and file sharing.
Lauri Love’s trial: escaping thoughtcrime in the UK
forcing decryption of a complete hard drive goes beyond interception of communications.
770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014
Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation. Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers.
“Would it be too much to ask for the IPCC to consider this scientific evidence when issuing their next report?” – Kenneth Richard asks rhetorically
Given that the IPCC has a mandate to find human causes of climate change, and is not charged with showing there aren’t any, then yes, it would be “too much to ask.” – I answer not so rhetorically for any out there who still think the IPCC are at all objective.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/
Where’s the list of papers with evidence that SUPPORTS the AGW scam?
I wonder why nobody can find any?
Paul Driessen - Olympic-sized climate propaganda
I am posting this article at Paul Driessen's request. I would add to the comments of the Egyptian commentators he quotes about Obama's belief that man-made global warming is our foremost crisis that Hillary Clinton claims she will have an even more radical program of fossil fuel use suppression than does Obama.
I am posting this article at Paul Driessen's request. I would add to the comments of the Egyptian commentators he quotes about Obama's belief that man-made global warming is our foremost crisis that Hillary Clinton claims she will have an even more radical program of fossil fuel use suppression than does Obama.
22 July 2016
Science or advocacy? by Prof. David R. Legates
Science or advocacy?
Students are learning energy and climate change advocacy, not climate science
David R. Legates
For almost thirty years, I have taught climate science at three different universities. What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate. This makes them easy targets for the climate alarmism that pervades America today.
Earth’s climate probably is the most complicated non-living system one can study, because it naturally integrates astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, geology, hydrology, oceanography and cryology, and also includes human behavior by both responding to and affecting human activities. Current concerns over climate change have further pushed climate science to the forefront of scientific inquiry.
What should we be teaching college students?
At the very least, a student should be able to identify and describe the basic processes that cause Earth’s climate to vary from poles to equator, from coasts to the center of continents, from the Dead Sea or Death Valley depression to the top of Mount Everest or Denali. A still more literate student would understand how the oceans, biosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere – driven by energy from the sun – all work in constantly changing combinations to produce our very complicated climate.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s definition of climate science literacy raises the question of whether climatology is even a science. It defines climate science literacy as “an understanding of your influence on climate and climate’s influence on you and society.”
How can students understand and put into perspective their influence on the Earth’s climate if they don’t understand the myriad of processes that affect our climate? If they don’t understand the complexity of climate itself? If they are told only human aspects matter? And if they don’t understand these processes, how can they possibly comprehend how climate influences them and society in general?
Worse still, many of our colleges are working against scientific literacy for students.
At the University of Delaware, the Maryland and Delaware Climate Change Education Assessment and Research (MADE CLEAR) defines the distinction between weather andclimate by stating that “climate is measured over hundreds or thousands of years,” and defining climate as “average weather.” That presupposes that climate is static, or should be, and that climate change is unordinary in our lifetime and, by implication, undesirable.
Climate, however, is not static. It is highly variable, on timescales from years to millennia – for reasons that include, but certainly are not limited to, human activity.
have been caught exaggerating, fabricating and falsifying data to support their views, suppressing contrary data, intimidating scientists who disagree, and corrupting the scientific peer-review process.
Also
Students taught Climate Advocacy NOT Climate Science
This is tragic for Earth science. When I did my M.S. in Earth science ten years ago, my supervisor was a geologist who specializes in the Quaternary. As head of department he has decided not to provide climate courses.
The reason seems to be that he relies on grants from various US Government agencies that he would not get if it were known that he believes most climate change is natural and that most modern warming is simply recovery from the Little Ice Age.
The reason seems to be that he relies on grants from various US Government agencies that he would not get if it were known that he believes most climate change is natural and that most modern warming is simply recovery from the Little Ice Age.
............................................................................
The paper by Belda et Al (2014) is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map from modern datasets.
Belda confirms what H.H. Lamb said about climate chant between the beginning and end of the 20th century: there was not much change.
Lamb wrote, "In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased)." (end of quote) Climate,
H. H. Lamb, History and the Modern World Edition 2, Routledge, 1995
The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)
Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.
The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.
In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.
Belda confirms what H.H. Lamb said about climate chant between the beginning and end of the 20th century: there was not much change.
Lamb wrote, "In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased)." (end of quote) Climate,
H. H. Lamb, History and the Modern World Edition 2, Routledge, 1995
The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)
Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.
The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.
In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.
Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming
A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years.
Scream #171: Vaccine hesitancy
April 12, 2016 - Vaccine hesitancy: A vade mecum v1.0 (full text) "Monitor the vaccination conversation and acceptance. The ongoing public conversation on vaccination in mainstream and social media can be monitored with tools such as the open-access Vaccine Sentimeter. Routine monitoring of the current topics, sentiment, questions and issues could help immunization programs to: (i) better understand and address public concerns, (ii) rapidly identify, analyze and respond to emerging controversies, and (iii) measure impact of vaccination campaigns." Conflict of interest statement: Authors AT and MW are employed by Sanofi Pasteur."
Comment by Dr. Tenpenny:
This is a very important FULL TEXT paper. It evaluates the recommendations given by SAGE and outlines how the WHO, the vaccine industry and nations collude to inject the world with toxic solutions under the ruse that this procedure makes a healthier population. Similar to papers published by the National Vaccine Action Plan (targeting the US), this is a step-by-step action plan for coercing you to be vaccinated.
The paper starts with, "The recent flurry of publications from the WHO SAGE Working Group on the growing challenge of vaccine hesitancy provides some important insights into this often misunderstood phenomenon.”
So, what is SAGE? The acronym stands for Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. Established by the Director-General of WHO in 1999, SAGE's 15 members from around the world are the principle advisory group on Immunization, including overall global policies and strategies, vaccine technologies, vaccine R&D, and development of delivery systems designed to vaccinate all people in all countries in the world. SAGE is concerned not just with childhood vaccines and immunization, but all vaccine-preventable diseases. SAGE members are the global equivalent of members of NVAC, National Vaccine Advisory Committee, in the US. Both panels consist of appointed, not elected, advisors. They areuntouchable: they can’t be fired, sued or dismissed. Yet, these are the people who set the policies and agendas to force vaccines on us all
Some health news.
https://youtu.be/3Z2iRormxkw
This Indian Tribe Is Fighting For Our Country’s Clean Water And No One Is Reporting It
The Lakhóta and Sioux are trying to fight a pipeline from being built beneath the Missouri, Mississippi, and Big Sioux rivers.
Posts
