Most of you need to go back to high school and review how basic science works. That includes reviewing Science research papers out of the preeminent journals. Examples of which I've already posted.
Not this stuff out of a biased website. Whatever it is.

Harry M

I remember the occurrence last year when a group of environmental wacko climate change scientists went to the Antarctic in order to study the melting ice, but got stuck in ice that wasn't supposed to be that thick. It took a small armada of ice-breakers and helicopters over several days to get them out. I love irony.
I'm no scientist, as I understand it, the temperature down there is 70 below zero. That it would take 260 megatons of nuclear explosion to melt enough ice to raise the water less that a foot. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but the real question is: Why are we wasting time on this !@@#$$#@!?

Here is why you cannot trust the climate scientists in the middle of the global warming debate.

Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, UK, actually wrote this in an e-mail:

"I just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the data series for the last twenty years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and to the 1961 series for Keith's to hide the decline."

Identifications: "Mike" is Michael Mann, author of the Hockey Stick Graph. "Keith" is Keith Briffa, another mutual friend.

These guys know each other--and they know each other well. They get together and decide how to cook the data (pun intended) to pretend that the globe is..er..cooking.

Thank You, CG! it's wonderful seeing another engineer who also loves the language in as precise a way as we must view science!!! -- j

and Maph, it's sad to see that our fact-gatherers' misrepresentations are caused by conflicts of interest ... I have tons of interest conflicts and strive mightily to block them as I approach facts. yes, I over-eat. yes, I smoked and harmed my lungs. practice makes, well, better? maybe I can cheat this cause-and-effect thing! -- j

That is exactly the example I would use: Newtons Laws of Motion were regarded as being unchanging girders of physics, but we now know them to be 'local phenomenon'. They are useful approximations of how 'things work' when they are not really small (subatomic particles) or really big (galaxies) or really fast (as you say above). Newtons Laws are what we as biological animals can use to express motion in our senses-visible world.

And you are correct in that something that is scientifically true is rarely completely overturned. That foundation finding often serves as a basis for further research - which research ends up recursively modifying the foundation law.

Jan

unfortunately regardless of how much true factual information surfaces the movement by the government will not change its course. those in power who have absolutely no knowledge nor do they ever want to acquire any will simply ignore what this article explains. they will continue to ignore the facts and make laws that will have devastating affects on all of us in the usa. the rest of the world will not do anything.

I agree, although real sciences almost never result in a complete rejection of what was known before. For instance, part of why we know that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is right, is that it agrees with Newtonian mechanics at speeds not close to the speed of light, and at lower gravitational fields.

This is the distinction between 'science as a religion' and 'science as an objective process'. Very few people understand that science = change. They want absolute answers that they can depend on and pass down to their grandchildren. That is religion. Science changes all the time.

This is something we need to teach: with science, there is no permanency, only a set of endless progressive determinations.

Jan

I am searching for the period in history when the climate was not changing. I know there is a record of this somewhere since everything else since God created heaven and the earth has remained exactly the same.

The global cooling scare:
See Newsweek, Cooling World, April 28, 1975, several scientists and institutions quoted.
James Hansen was one. He was one of the instigators.
Now, what he and others said is being whitewashed, using Wikepedia as a source on climate is a joke. (Do you know the story?)

How cooling changed to warming:
Hansen again was in the lead. He, like many, found that money and support came from greens to stop (so-called) warming. Hansen himself was allied with Al Gore, Heinz and Soros,

The money trail is quite interesting, warming is beneficial, while cooling can be quite bad for human and most other life. The reason is that the green movement is an anti-life religion. They want to cut human population by whatever it takes - destroying industry, standard of living, sources of food and fuel; no use of coal, oil, nuclear, they do not even like dams, cutting down trees for fuel is ok, for the moment.

A few amusing quotes:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
'..whether there is a new temperature record depends upon the particular data set used.'
James Hansen

Lucky;

Thanks. Very interesting.

I salute you for publicly acknowledging your theory is "right out the window." Although most of us frequently change our minds, nowadays people who acknowledge that they were wrong or that they've changed their minds are as scarces as hens' teeth.

The resignation letter of Lennart Bengtsson and commentary is on here-
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/scienti...

db; thanks for finding the article. The more and more information of the deliberate falsification of data and analysis used in the attempt to substantiate Global disaster caused by humans appears on it's surface to be insanity. But the more I think and ponder, I believe it's a reflection of self-hate and fear of reality by human kind. But the cost of loss of individual freedom, loss of pride in humanities achievements, the waste of capital and intellect, and the damage done to the scientific method and public trust is huge and I wonder just what the ultimate impact to our species will be.

As long as it is based on facts

My point is it's a fallacy to say science cannot be trusted b/c it changes. I like Michael Pollan, but he's a bad offender on this. He says we used to think macronutrients were all we needed. Then we found micronutrients. There's some evidence that were wrong about the nature of micro nutrients. Ahh forget it, he says, let's just abandon all food science b/c it's keeps changing its mind.

He means anthropogenic, i.e. caused by humans.

Anthropomorphic means something that looks human to the eye but isn't. It could be an anthropomorphic dummy or an anthropomorphic arrangement of branches that you momentarily mistake for a person.

It also means imputing human traits on non-humans as in "the ants were all fired up and excited," implying what ants experience when they're more active is anything like the human emotion of excitement. That's anthropomorphizing the ants.

hear hear

Great article Db. Ironically I think capitalism would be the best system for combating global warming if it existed.