Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted “independent(ly)” of the agency.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

 

Joel Schwartz,a professor of environmental epidemiology at Harvard University who received $31 million from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in funding, wrote a paper praising EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which will shutter many coal-fired power plants. Schwartz acts as if the funding from EPA for a report praising the agency’s findings did not imply a conflict of interest. No news stories raised claims of conflicts of interests regarding Schwartz’s paper.

Schwartz requested more funding whilst in the middle of writing the paper praising the EPA.
Schwartz and his co author received over 50 million EPA money.

Ironically, Willie Soon also worked at Harvard, and received 40k a year for 10 years, given by the University, not Exxon, Harvard procured the money, and split it up between three scientists.
Solar physics is not related to Oil, no conflict of interest.

Harvard attacked Soon for not declaring his "conflict of interest" but said nothing about Schwartz who was actually a massive conflict of interest.

Why.
Well Soon debunked NASA's G A Schmidt solar paper on Nature. Calling Schmidt an amateur because he made basic mistakes. Hardly surprising, Schmidt is so arrogant he thinks he can write solar physics papers atmospheric science, even though he has a PhD in maths and his actual skills are maths models.

So the clima nuts attacked him personally, whatever you do dont talk about the science, for the love of god no..

Yup, pure

Alarmist scientists get 10s of millions, Soon got the same as he'd get working in McDonalds.

What Schwartz got alone... is far more than all the oil funded skeptical science which is about 20 million, Schwartz alone got 30 million ffs.

 

Mmmmmm.....

 

Not for me thanks, but that said mankind does need to make better use of the bountiful supply of protein iin insects rather than having vast swathes of land set aside for inefficient meat production.

 

You don't know what I meant because you're as thick as 2 shorts.

You brought up neocortex, and I came back with whales, some of whom have brains that aren't far off the level of humans in terms of their potential intelligence. However without the means to create anything with limbs they remain simply part of the food chain.

As soon as early man evolved, his FULLY opposable thumbs with pad to pad grip, allowed him to create, his ability to stand also meant that he didn't need his hands to move himself around like the apes.The first things he did was to make tools and weapons. Once he had formed the latter he established himself at the top of the food chain, where he has remained and continued to develop and evolve in the hundreds of thousands of years since. Without fully opposable thumbs his intelligence would have counted for **** all, same as it has for whales, ergo the comparison.

 

Probably because they're too smart to let the NSA listen to all their private information

 

There are quite few actual scientists who are qualified to discuss this. Obviously I am not credible so, I just post what top experts in the field write.

Judith Curry again

Judith Curry, Special to Financial Post | December 29, 2015 | Last Updated: Dec 30 11:30 AM ET

Without an understanding of natural climate, there’s no strong basis for predicting climate change

The world’s leaders are touting a victory over the 2015 agreement in Paris to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and so to prevent dangerous climate change.

A number of scientists have spoken out, saying that the Paris agreement is merely political theater and will do little to reduce global warming. Ironically, many scientists on both sides of the climate debate agree regarding the potential efficacy of the Paris agreement to alter the trajectory of climate change: i) scientists who view the proposed emissions reductions as insufficient to significantly alter the warming trajectory, and ii) scientists who regard climate variations to be relatively insensitive to carbon dioxide emissions and hence insensitive to such policies.

The 2013 Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the dire projection that we can expect about 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the 21st century if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced. To assess the credibility of this prediction in terms of the actual trajectory of the 21st century climate, it is important to point out that the global climate models cannot predict future major volcanic eruptions or solar cycles, and do not adequately predict the long-term oscillations in the ocean.

What is the global warming hiatus, and why does it matter?

The credibility of the IPCC’s projections of 21st century climate has been called into question by a slowdown of the rate of warming in the early 21st century, relative to a more rapid rate of warming in the last quarter of the 20th century. This slowdown is referred to as the “global warming hiatus.”

Climate models can’t explain the warming from 1910-1945 or the mid-century grand hiatus

The 2013 IPCC assessment made the following statement: “the rate of warming over the past 15 years . . . is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” Most significantly, the observed rate of warming in the early 21st century was slower than climate model predictions. The growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations has raised serious questions about the climate models that are being used as the basis for national and international energy and climate policies.

A comparison of three global surface temperature datasets is shown in Graph 1 for the period since the 1990s. The data set with the largest trend since 1998 (0.1 C per decade) is the new NOAA data set (the black line), which has a trend that is 50 per cent greater than some of the other data sets. However, even the larger NOAA trend is just below the lower end of the climate model projections for the early 21st century warming of 0.11 to 0.43 C per decade.

please log in to view this image

The warming hiatus is most clearly revealed in the global satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperature in Graph 2.

Scientists disagree on the reasons for the discrepancies between the variations of surface temperature and the lower atmospheric temperatures. The presence of El Nino and La Nina events compounds the difficulty in interpreting trends. Scientists working with the global surface temperature datasets have predicted an 85 per cent probability that 2015 will be the warmest year on record. However, scientists working with the satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures do not foresee 2015 as being among the warmest years.

Scientists continue to debate these temperatures and investigate the reasons for discrepancies among the data sets. It will likely be five years into the future before we have the perspective to identify whether the warming hiatus has ended, or whether the warming in 2015 from the large El Nino event will be followed by several cool years, as is often the case following El Nino events.

What are the implications of the warming hiatus for our understanding of how much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? The significance of a reduced rate of warming since 1998 is that during this period, 25 per cent of human emissions of carbon dioxide have occurred.

The key conclusion of the 2013 Assessment Report of the IPCC is that it is extremely likely that more than half of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans, and climate model simulations indicate that all of this warming has been caused by humans.

Global surface temperature anomalies since 1850 (from the Hadley Centre and the UK Climate Research Unit) are shown in Graph 3.

If the warming since 1950 was caused by humans, what caused the warming during the period 1910-1945? In fact, the period 1910-1945 comprises over 40 per cent of the warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10 per cent of the carbon dioxide increase since 1900. Clearly, human emissions of greenhouse gases played little role in causing this early warming. The mid-century period of slight cooling from 1945 to 1975 – referred to as the “grand hiatus” – also has not been satisfactorily explained.

Apart from these unexplained variations in 20th century temperatures, there is evidence that the global climate has been warming overall for the past 200 years, or even longer. While historical data becomes increasingly sparse in the 19th century, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has assembled the available temperature data over land, back to 1760 in Graph 4.
_________________________________________________________

Hardly #conspiracytheory if this is what a top scientist in a quite small field (with decades of experience) is saying, which is mirrored by Another, Richard Lindzen at MIT both having actually worked for the IPCC on reports btw

 

Mmmmmm yummy, not as nice as that steak the Japanese scientist made from crap "**** burger"

please log in to view this image

Who funded this ****ing idiot

 

'Not for me, but everyone else should...'

 

I heard about this some years back...........bet it tastes sh1t

 

Well if you believe the hysteria that "man made climate will ruin our crops" then pucker up neddy and prepare to get stuck in

 

TBF we've probably ALL already had some bcos there's powdered insect stuff going into some foods we take for granted.

 

Just like McDonald's then.

 

We get Keratin from crushing beetles.

plus food production regulations allow for a certain amount of bug and bug feces per x amount of product.

 

Vile
I feel sorry for Americans though, if you think McDonalds is bad in Europe.. they put silicone anti foaming agents in McNuggets in the US and that pink goo they call meat Remnants of Cows injected with all manner of Frankenstein drugs


Food regulations over there were practically written by the corps selling the products.

 

In 1988, NASA’s James Hansen predicted 1.3C warming above 1960 by the year 2015, under his “Business as Usual” Scenario A, with exponential growth after the year 2000.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf

Temperature is actually following Hansen's scenario C, draconian emissions cuts to stop emission growth.
Given CO2 has gone up and temp is following no emissions growth scenario, has Hansen proven CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature.?

please log in to view this image

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

 

The November report of the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative shows that $395bn was spent in 2014 on climate finance. Of this, only 6% went to helping vulnerable people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest was spent on mitigation, trying to affect events that may or may not happen someday.

No money in this game to be sure.. the above almost 400 billion doesn't include the vast renewable and scientific funding, or what the rest of the world is spending or cost of the IPCC.

Now lets compare that to big oil's total profits 2014

please log in to view this image

You gotta be kidding me, man made climate change is in total worth decades of total oil profits, in a short few years

 

And you're that dumb that you haven't grasped how this scenario supposedly fits the 'conspiracy'theory of the global warming #fraud

Massive investment in clean energy and Governmental expenditure combined with a falling of oil company profits flies in the face of that bollocks theory.

 

FYI Sisu copied the above from Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. A mechanical engineer who got interested in climate change when offered money from conservative groups, including the Heartland Institute who along with denying climate change used to deny health risks from smoking.

 

Amazing how his conspiraloon psyche allows his little brain to decry every source of information that disagrees with what he's allowed himself to be conned into believing and he slates the authors with anything he can (however tenuous e.g the Jewish atheist nonsense)

And yet he ignores such obvious credibility issues from the authors of the absolute bullshit he feasts on.