tirsdag 21. november 2017

MYTE #25 Klimaforskerne er "kjøpt og betalt".

MYTH #25

SCIENTISTS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY AND ITS ALL A HOAX




In actuality, the science of AGW is apolitical, being based on credible evidence and physics. The denial of climate science, is based on no credible evidence and no physics, and is all-political.
The denial of science is also like a true religion, for its acolytes also deny evidence and physics based on no evidence and no physics.
I virkeligheten er vitenskapen om de menneskeskapte klimaendringene apolitisk og basert på troverdige bevis og grunnleggende fysikk. Klimafornektelse er basert på ingen troverdig bevis og ingen fysikk, og er all-politisk/ideologisk.
Vitenskapsfornektelse er også som en ekte religion, for dens dogma benekter også bevis og fysikk basert på intet bevis og ingen fysikk.


Plot idea:

99.4% of the world's climate scientists contrive a climate crisis,

but are exposed by a plucky band of

libertarian lobbyists, amateur-denier bloggers with their doctored youtube-video graphs with childish hand written arrows and comments added, mother funded boys room conspiracy drivlers, astroturf front groups, Koch-brothers founded think tanks, web-trolls, crazy alt-right white supremacy nationalist pro-gun pro-Trump madcap wingnuts, fascists, bible mums and boys, creationists, old conservative white men, political hacks, corrupt republican politicians, government hating free market fundamentalists, robber barons AND the fossil fuel industry.

A vital clue is to be found in who is making such silly claims.

Oddly, the only people who seem to have noticed this "hoax" are fossil fuel and libertarian lobbyists and their spokespeople, plus a bunch of ideological and political hacks who can't seem to understand even the most basic science.

Plot-ide:

99,4% av verdens klimaforskere dikter opp en klimakrise med planer om å opprette en sosialistisk global myndighet,

men blir avslørt av en modig gjeng av

bloggere, amatør-fornektere, gutteroms-googlere og konspirasjons-teoretikere, astroturfe frontgrupper, nett-troll, youtube-videoer, grafer uten linker fikset på i fornekterblogger med barnslige håndskrevne piler og kommentarer, nasjonalistiske innvandrerhatende koko-høyrefolk, Breitbart-lesere, Resett-kommentarfelt, kreasjonister, eldgamle konservative hvite menn, Ayn Rand-onanister, korrupte republikanske politikere, myndighetshatende fri markeds-fundamentalister og fossil brensel industrien.

I like when they talk about the conspiracy of super powerful scientists against the weak and feeble oil, gas and coal industries. 

Climate denialism is a movement sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and their wealthy free marked fundamentalist donors who have an aim of discrediting science to enhance their pocketbooks.

Cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas.

Amazingly enough, the only "scientists" for hire are..contrarians:

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.”
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/fossil-fuel-industry-academics-08122015/

https://qr.ae/TUGY3O

Smearing scientists and undermining"unwanted" science that comes into conflict with ideology and powerful self interests is part of the denial propaganda machine. We have heard their lies for 100 years with lead, asbestos, DDT and tobacco and now C02.

When did this scam start? Was it Fourier in the 1820s when he first proposed the idea? Perhaps it was Tyndall in 1854 when he measured the radiative properties of atmospheric gases? Arrhenius in 1896 when he predicted the burning of fossil fuels would warm the planet? 


Maybe it was E. O. Hulbert of the Naval Research Lab in the early 1930s when he added water vapor to the theory? It’s a naval conspiracy perhaps? Maybe Guy Callendar, that British steam engineer in the 1930s who first showed the planet was warming. Perhaps it is a British conspiracy? Or how about Plass in 1954 when he wrote on the role of CO2 in climate change? After all, he did work for the military and it could be a military fraud, right? Was Revelle in on it when he showed the oceans couldn’t absorb the excess CO2 in 1956? So, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography was just a liberal scam, right? Was the President’s Science Advisory Commission in on the conspiracy when they wrote their report in 1965? Manabe in 1967 when he made his first model? Can’t trust the Japanese, right? 

Was the National Academy of Science in on it already in 1979 when they produced the Charney Report on CO2 and climate or their report in 1983 on the changing climate? Surely, Exxon wasn't a part of the conspiracy when their in-house models confirmed the global warming consensus in 1982.

Please tell me when and how this fraud started and how it works. How are the thousands and thousands of scientists who have worked on the problem since the 1820s complicit? Who got them all to toe the line and continue this big fraud for such a long time?

 global warming money


To suggest global warming exists only because climate scientists need the money, you need to ignore melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, increasing extreme weather events, strings of record hot years, retreating glaciers, acidifying oceans, warming sea temperatures and bleaching corals. Or claim there is a conspiracy to manufacture these impacts in exchange for a wage.

Klimaforskeren Katharine Hayhoe oppklarer:


It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years. A conspiracy would have to be so powerful that it has co-opted the official positions of dozens of scientific organizations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.K.'s Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics and the American Meteorological Society.

If there were a massive conspiracy to defraud the world on climate (and to what end?), surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in England and distributed by hackers in 2009 would bear proof of it. None did. Most of the few statements from those e-mails that critics claimed as evidence of malfeasance had more innocent explanations that make sense in the context of scientists conversing privately and informally. If any of the scientists involved manipulated data dishonestly or thwarted Freedom of Information requests, it would have been deplorable; however, there is no evidence that happened. What is missing is any clear indication of a widespread attempt to falsify and coordinate findings on a scale that could hold together a global cabal or significantly distort the record on climate change.

Climatologists are often frustrated by accusations that they are hiding data or the details of their models because, as NASA's Schmidt points out, much of the relevant information is in public databases or otherwise accessible—a fact that contrarians conveniently ignore when insisting that scientists stonewall their requests. (And because nations differ in their rules on data confidentiality, scientists are not always at liberty to comply with some requests.) If contrarians want to deal a devastating blow to global warming theories, they should use the public data and develop their own credible models to demonstrate sound alternatives.

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, between 1993 and 2014, federal spending on climate change research, technology, international assistance and adaptation rose from $2.4 billion to $11.6 billion. (An additional $26.1 billion was also allocated to climate change programs and activities by the economic stimulus package of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2014 exceeded $65 billion.) Yet the scientific research share of that money fell sharply throughout that period: most of the budgeted money went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat, whereas others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely. Surely the Freemasons could do better than that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/

Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done.





The false assertion that money is distorting the science comes, in part, from a spectacular misreading of the following graph.




The graph ostensibly shows how the US has gone from essentially funding nothing in the way of climate research to spending over $7 billion a year. But the vast majority of that money is in the form of "Climate Technology," and a careful reading of the report indicates that this goes to things like wind and solar power, biofuel production, and things of that nature. None of that money goes to the researchers who are actually generating the results that point to anthropogenic warming, so it can't possibly provide an incentive to them.

The money that is actually going to climate science is on the bottom of the graph, in purple. And, as that shows, funding has been essentially flat since the early 1990s. (Funding has gone up slightly in recent years, but is still in the neighborhood of $2 billion annually.) A lot of that money doesn't actually go to scientists, either, as it pays to support everything from some of NASA's Earth-monitoring satellites to land and ocean temperature monitoring.

The other issue with this graph is that it gives the false impression that funding shot up from nowhere around 1990. The truth of the matter is that the US has been funding climate science for decades. It's why we have things like a record of CO2 levels that goes back to the 1950s, temperature records that span over a century, and a detailed history of periods like the ice ages. People didn't just suddenly start studying this stuff in 1990—and much of the work from before that date was funded by the government. What changed was the accounting. There are over a dozen different branches of the government that fund some sort of science, but it wasn't until 1990 that the government formed the Climate Change Science Program, which started aggregating the expenditures across agencies.

There has never been any sudden boom in government funding for climate research that is luring people onto the research track, much less inducing them to support the consensus view. If anything, many years of flat funding would provide an incentive for people to look to getting outof the field. The graph, held up as evidence that climate scientists are being led around by money, actually shows the exact opposite.

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, between 1993 and 2014, federal spending on climate change research, technology, international assistance and adaptation rose from $2.4 billion to $11.6 billion. (An additional $26.1 billion was also allocated to climate change programs and activities by the economic stimulus package of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2014 exceeded $65 billion.) Yet the scientific research share of that money fell sharply throughout that period: most of the budgeted money went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat, whereas others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely

To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been largely flat, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.

Climate change which makes more sense.png 

BONUS:

Why is goverment funded scientist only a "problem" when their findings support AGW? 

The blogger and creationist Roy Spencer, who is a denier favorite they always link to, is, according to his home page, funded by the government. This just shows that when deniers says "scientists are in it for the money", its not really the funding they are worried about or dont like, but their result, which is there is a 99% agreement AGW is a fact.
https://rogerfjellstadolsen.blogspot.no/2017/10/yes-all-climate-denier-darlings.html



Hvis du vil bli rik fort, blir du ikke forsker eller klimaforsker. Du kommer deg inn i oljeindustrien.
 

Sjekk listen over verdens rikeste personer hos Forbes. Fant ingen klimaforskere gitt. Fant en god del fra olje/kull-industrien. Bekrefter iallefall hva en bør velge hvis en bare er "ute etter penga".





Fossil-brensel industriens egeninteresser og de ideologiske motiverte angrepene på forskere og "uønsket" vitenskap. 

Baldfaced lies planted in your head by the fossil fuel industry’s many minions, in a billion-dollar disinformation campaign lasting for decades, promoting over 190 lies like this one, using the old Soviet model of flooding the information marketplace with chaff—numerous fake science concoctions that most people lack the background in science and crticial thinking to process.

The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/10/nonprofit-maps-corporate-fossil-fuel-lobbying-efforts/

Non-science free market lobbying groups have a long history of setting up fake front organizations and now blogger networks to saturate the public domain with intentional misinformation.

Why did climate science become a political and ideological issue?
When think tanks started to lobby for the fossil fuel self interests 30 years ago, the first thing they did was to camouflage those interests as an anti government anti regulation anti tax ideological anti socialist "struggle".

They connected their audience’s underlying ideologies to climate change: Because cutting GHG emissions requires intervention regulation or increased taxation of carbon emissions—that curtail free market economics, people whose identity and worldview centers around free markets became particularly likely to reject the findings from climate science when the logic was laid bare.

This dates back to the late 1980s when it became pretty clear that there was no persistent Soviet threat. Conservatives needed a new bogeyman, and they found it in the environmental movement. “Green is the new Red,” became a common phrase in the conservative magazines of that era. Rather than suggesting that America strip away protections designed to keep air and water clean, commentators and pols railed against controls on less visible threats, like pesticides, ozone holes, and global warming. Cries for environmental regulation were twisted into calls for socialism and the end of economic progress.

The concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities.

Conservative think tanks and politicians took up the mantle of climate change denial and, for more than 25 years, they’ve kept at it.

Smearing scientists and undermining "unwanted" science which comes into conflict with self interests and ideology, is all part of the denial propaganda machine:

"Cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas".

Å sverte forskere, organisasjoner og vitenskap som ikke "passer" inn er en del av klimafornekter-propaganda-maskinen. Dette har og dype ideologiske røtter i en høyreskrudd konservativ anti myndighets, antiregulerings-tenkning der egeninteresser blir pakket inn i ideologi og politikk for å få fokuset vekk fra negative konsekvenser som global oppvarming og forurensing - og for å gjøre egeninteressene mer "spiselig" for befolkningen.



Tankesmiene og lobbyistenes oppgave var å  kamuflere fossil brensel-industriens egeninteresser om til noe som er spiselig for befolkningen. I USA var sjakktrekket å bake disse egeninteressene inn i en ideologisk "kamp" mot kommunisme og en anti myndighets / anti regulerings-forakt med en oppblåst skattealarmisme. Disse 20-30 år gamle propagandaløgnene og andre tankesmieløgner som "C02 er naturlig, bare plantefor" og "det er solen", blir fremdeles resirkulert av amatørfornekterne den dag i dag.

Og når en har gjort klima til ideologi og politisk agenda, er det kort vei til å kalle myndighetenes reguleringer på fossilt brensel for sosialisme, og et hinder for økonomisk utvikling. Dette går tilbake til slutten av 80-årene, da det ble ganske klart at det ikke lenger var noen vedvarende sovjetisk trussel. De konservative trengte en ny busemann, og den fant de i miljøbevegelsen."Green is the new Red", ble et felles uttrykk i konservative magasiner fra den tiden. Snarere enn å foreslå at USA fjernet beskyttelse utformet for å holde luften og vannet rent, raste de mot kontroller og restriksjoner på mindre synlige trusler, som plantevernmidler, ozonhull og global oppvarming. Hvorfor disse folkene også er så kritisk til Fns Klimapanel og den nye Paris-avtalen? Disse blir sett på som “ venstreskrudd statlig sosialisme” tredd ned over hodet på en livsstil. Som kun er ute etter å “skade” amerikansk industri.

On the origins of environmental bullshit

"It’s not surprising that high-profile deniers are almost exclusively conservative white men, since they have most benefited from the industrial capitalist system, and therefore have the most skin in the game when it comes to protecting the powers that be — even if they aren’t those powers."

[...] “conservative white males are likely to favour protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well”. It added that “heightened emotional and psychic investment in defending in-group claims may translate into misperceived understanding about problems like climate change that threaten the continued order of the system.”

Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States

How Is Climate Change Denial Still a Thing?

Det hysteriske, paranoide konspiratoriske,desperate tilgjorte "oss mot dem" konservative skrot-høyre-ideologiske frimarkeds-fundamentalistiske libertarianske Ayn Rand anti-regjering anti-regulering budskapet med sine obligatoriske og forutsigbare angrep på uønsket klimavitenskap og sverting av forskere og konkurrerende grønn energi,

filtrert gjennom tenketanker og astroturfe organisasjoner av ulveflokk-angripende lobby-skribenter, falske eksperter + deres medsammensvorne i media,

resirkulert av ekkokammer-fornekterblogger og YouTube-videoer av amatørfornektere og gutterroms-konspirasjonsteoretikere og nettroll,

-er egentlig bare en

kloakkstrømm av kynisk forurenser-industri egeninteresser,

kamuflert som en politisk høyre / venstre kamp drag-queened i en svulstig sosialistisk heksejakt, som utgir seg for å være rettet mot "folket på gata", (deres naive sheeple-stamme av lettlurte og unnværlige nyttige idioter) og "verdens fattige",

men den virkelige dagsorden er

å legitimere retten til å forurense for olje-, gass- og kullfirmaer og å argumentere for stadig flere skattelettelser for frimarkeds-fundamentalist-kapitalistene som eier dem slik at de kan fortsette å tjene blodpenger ved å ødelegge folkehelsen og øke omfanget av global oppvarming

The hysterical, paranoid conspiratorial and desperate feigned "us against them" conservative alt-right wingnut ideological free marked fundamentalist libertarian Ayn Rand anti-government anti-regulation tax "scam" alarmism demagogy junk with its mandatory and predictable attacks on unwanted (climate) science and smear against scientists and competing green energy,

filtered through think tanks and astroturf orgs by their wolf pack attackers, Opinion Piece writers, fake experts and their media-accomplices,

recycled by echo chamber denier blogs and YouTube-videos by amateur deniers and boys room conspiracy drivlers and web-trolls,

-are really only a

sewer stream of cynical polluters industry self interests,

camouflaged as a political right / left struggle -drag queened in a convulsively socialist witch hunt, posing like its about the "people on the street", (their gullible sheeple tribe of duped and dispensable useful idiots) , and "the poor people of the world",
but the real agenda is

to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the free marked fundamentalists who created them so they can continue to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and add to the damages of CC.

Private corporations take the profit while the environment and public health takes the bill.



https://jpratt27.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/hopeless-realism-greennewdeal-ocasio2018-extinctionrebellion-climatestrike-stopadani-auspol-qldpol-thedrum-qanda-climatechange/?fbclid=IwAR0qI2vKsdJtkq5uR279r4pF7HGy2Z9yRj9UOUQHLIIPNk9_HA2VlBIFbA0

To achive this they set up conservative think tanks, and various front groups”, along with “amateur climate bloggers … public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians”. The goal is simple and clear: no regulation on industry, its an “institutionalisation of delay” on climate policy.

The tools are simple as well: lies, obfuscation, defamation and the creation of an image of scientific uncertainty.

They then connected their audience’s underlying ideologies to climate change: Because cutting GHG emissions requires intervention regulation or increased taxation of carbon emissions—that curtail free market economics, people whose identity and worldview centers around free markets became particularly likely to reject the findings from climate science when the logic was laid bare.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
 
"The AEI was one of dozens of the new thinktanks bankrolled by hundreds of millions from the Kochs and their allies. Sold to the public as quasi-scholarly organizations, their real function was to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the people who created them. The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”.



Den konservative tankesmien Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded in 2004, a conservative political advocacy group in the United States funded by David H. Koch and Charles Koch. As the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group, it is one of the most influential American conservative organizations forsøk på å si at det handler om hard workers– not special interests,  er jo litt søt da:

To mobilize citizens to advocate for policies that cut red tape and increase opportunity, put the brakes on government overspending, and get the economy working for hard workers– not special interests.



Denne selvsentrerte grådigheten er de forurensende næringene og multinasjonale selskapene med sine anti-regulerings-holdninger som ikke bryr seg om planetens fremtid. De bryr seg ikke om å kutte ned utslipp eller begrense globale temperaturer. De bryr seg bare om å skaffe mer penger og kortsiktig økonomisk gevinst.

Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. [...] There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”

Det er derfor fossil brensel interesser sluser milliarder av dollar i "mørke" penger til pseudoforskere, lobbyister og tankesmier for å oversvømme media med løgner om global oppvarming. Løgner som de nyttige amatør-fornekterne og nettrollene, etter at de er blitt lurt til å tro det handler om dem, skal resirkulere i blogger og sosiale medier. Og hvis de bruker den typen summer til å undergrave alt som ville regulere utslipp av fossile brensler, forestill deg hvor mye penger de tjener ved å spy disse gassene ut i luften som forurensing før de ender opp som skadelige drivhusgasser. Det kalles selvsentrert grådighet.



Denne beskrivelsen av klimafornekterindustrien er uhyggelig presis:

-a well-funded, highly complex and relatively co-ordinated denial machine. It includes “contrarian scientists, fossil fuel corporations, conservative think tanks, and various front groups”, along with “amateur climate bloggers … public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians”. The goal is simple and clear: no regulation on industry, and what environmental sociologist Robert Brulle calls the “institutionalisation of delay” on climate policy. The tools are simple as well: lies, obfuscation, defamation and the creation of an image of scientific uncertainty.

Dette inkluderer tidligere, nå falske klimaforskerne, som har degenerert til å bli betalte innleide tåkeleggere, som nekter å diskutere med ekte klimaforskere, som aldri publiserer i peer-reviewed vitenskapelige tidsskrifter og som aldri deltar i internasjonale konferanser om klimavitenskap. Disse falske forskerne kommuniserer kun gjennom blogger, på YouTube, som foredrasgsholdere for tankesmier, som skribenter for kreasjonister.

Hvorfor?
Fordi de vet at deres løgner ikke kan overleve under lyset av ekte vitenskap. Og det er de samme 5-6 navnene som går igjen. Det er komisk hvor tette bånd disse falske klimaforskerne har til fossil brensel industrien.



 

The money spent on anti science and attacks on climate science is riddicilous:

What is the current state of affairs after 30 years of this climate denial machine? In the US, at least 180 congressional members and senators are declared climate deniers. They’ve received more than US$82 million in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and its partners.

Abstract
This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html 

http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx






Den økonomiske støtten bak løgnene om klima har flere kilder; Her er de sentrale; Koch Brothers/ Koch Industries. Og Donors Trust. Koch Brothers/ Koch Industries har opprettet en rekke organisasjoner som systematisk sprer løgner om klima. Det samme har nevnte Peabody Energy, USAs største kullgruveselskap. Disse har etablert tankesmier, industri-interessegrupper og lobbyvirksomheter som i lang tid har jobbet med å diskreditere vitenskap om klimaforandringer. Du finner f.eks både The Heartland Institute og CEI på denne listen over mottagere av hemmelige donorpenger. More on the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
“Over the last decade, fossil fuel companies distanced themselves from open climate denial. Much of the funding for climate denial went underground, with corporations and conservative billionaires routing the funds through secretive networks such as Donors Trust."


Lets take a closer look at one of the astroturf organizations and their anti-science work.

Astroturf refers to apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations,
industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms. 

Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a "grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them."

Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it "democracy for hire."

The National Association of Scholars (sic) is a astroturf organization which attacks all science which is "inconvenient" for the free marked fundamentalists it represents. Its anti science all the way.

Notice how they came up with a name which gives them the same abbreviation as The National Academy of Sciences.(NAS) This is part of their camouflage. To make their astroturf fake org look more like a real one and hopefully, to them, some people will not notice the difference between them and the highly respected National Academy of Sciences

The National Association of Scholars major foundation donor is the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the Scaife Foundations overseen by the late right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, aluminum and banking fortune. The foundations give tens of millions of dollars annually to fund right-wing organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and anti-immigrant and Islamophobic organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. 

Here are their latest fake "report":

"A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations."

This study examines the different aspects of the reproducibility crisis of modern science. The report also includes a series of policy recommendations, scientific and political, for alleviating the reproducibility crisis.

https://www.nas.org/projects/irreproducibility_report

A brief history of fake climate news in the mainstream media

http://grist.org/article/a-brief-history-of-fake-climate-news-in-the-mainstream-media/


Og hvorhen det er klimafornekting, er kreasjonistene aldri langt unna:




Hva visste oljeselskapene? Hvem er det som egentlig er ute etter penga? Exxon har visst om de menneskeskapte klimaendringene siden 70-tallet, men valgte å sponse frontgrupper for å lage tvil. Slik som tobakksindustrien hadde gjort før dem.



En helt ny studie bekrefter at ExxonMobil visste om AGW, men at de valgte å sponse frontgrupper og tankesmier som har sådd og som fremdeles sår tvil om menneskeskapte klimaendringer:

This is the first empirical comparison of Exxon Mobil’s internal and peer-reviewed research with its public statements on climate change. It’s pretty clear that their strategy was the same as tobacco’s. Delay looked to them as a smart business choice, and it may well have been.

1982. Exxons egne forskere bekrefter at menneskers forbruk av fossile brensler øker konsentrasjonen av C02 i atmosfæren og bidrar til økt drivhuseffekt.

EXXON OWN SCIENTISTS CONFIRMS OUR c02 EMISSIONS EFFECTS GLOBAL CLIMATE AND WARMS ABOUT FURTHER FUTURE DANGERS:




Videre står det  svart på hvitt at Exxons egne forskeres funn dermed var helt "in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric C02".



Konklusjonen i studien er derfor veldig tydelig:

5. Conclusion Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil’s advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil’s AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws.


How Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers created a culture of climate doubt

Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change

Abstract

Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.


Oljegiganten Shell visste også om de menneskeskapte klimaendringene, og lagde en film om dette allerede i 1991:


Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

If policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://goo.gl/SX9y38

From lead til C02.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.....


Ord som "alarmister" har vi vel ikke hørt siden tobakksindustrien brukte slike uttrykk for å sverte vitenskap og forskere som advarte om helsefarene ved røyking.

Ord som "fanatikere" har vi vel ikke hørt siden tobakksindustrien brukte slike uttrykk for å sverte vitenskap og forskere som advarte om helsefarene ved røyking.

Hvis internett hadde fantes på 60- 70-tallet ville amatørfornekterne hatt sine egne grupper der de argumenterte imot de helsemessige skadeeffektene av røyking, viste til anekdotiske eksempler og insisterte på at lungekreft var "naturlig", mens røykeslutt-kampanjer var en del av en global sammensvergelse fra myndighetene om beskatning og sosioøkonomisk kontroll.

Å forholde seg til den overveldende bevismengden for AGW, støttet av alle vitenskapelige akademier i verden + 99% av den fagfellevurderte litteraturen + de fleste oljeselskaper og observasjoner fra grunnleggende fysikk, er ikke “alarmisme”.

Det er realisme.

Alarmisme er når du tilhører et bittelite mindretall av gutteroms-googlere og hobby-forskere som må skrike høyt om og om igjen om en internasjonal konspirasjon for å få sin alternative virkelighet til å stemme. Slik som flat earthers, kreasjonister, anti vaxxere, chem-trailers, månelandings-konspirasjon-folket og KLIMAFORNEKTERE må.

First: Science is conservative by nature and climate science even more.

Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming.
Words like “fear monger” and “alarmist” are straw men. Tobacco industry used the same condescending terms against the science and scientists who found out about the hazards of tobacco smoking. The tobacco industry didn’t want to hear about science which was in “conflict” with their money flow. Just like the oil industry now.

And just to be very clear on one thing:

If you support a president who claims “the sound of wind causes cancer”,

you have lost your right to claim the scientists are “alarmist”.
Relating to the
overwhelming mountain of evidence for AGW backed by

EVERY single national academy of science on the planet, every scientific academy, over 99% of  the peer reviewed science which even most oil companies now agree with + observations and the principles of basic physics

is not "alarmism".

It's realism.

Alarmism is when you're

in the fringe minority screaming madly again and again that there must be a world wide conspiracy at work in order for your alternative reality to make sense.

Like flat Earthers, creationists, moon landing conspiracy drivlers and climate deniers have to.


"As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

  


If the internet had been around in the 60s and 70s, climate deniers would be arguing against the health effects of smoking, and dredging up historical/anecdotal examples to insist that lung cancer was "natural", while warning that smoking cessation efforts were all part of a global conspiracy of taxation and socio-economic control.

Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?



Tobakksindustrien på 50-tallet; "nikotin er ikke farlig" , det er bare "venstreskrudde" krefter som vil ødelegge industrien og livstilen vår. I dag kan du bytte ut tobakk med olje og nikotin med C02. Det er nøyaktig de samme kreftene som står bak tåkeleggingen. Det handler om å så tvil. Det handler om at C02 ikke skal være farlig så lenge som mulig, akkurat slik tobakksindustrien ville så tvil om koblingen mellom røyking og lungekreft og røyking og avhengighet så lenge som mulig. Før det var det bly, asbest og DDT:

“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said David Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”

While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.

The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret
— but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.





http://theweek.com/captured/730701/america-polluted


The dirty industry: a timeline.

Følg den skitne industriens vei fra bly, asbest, DDT, via tobakk til C02:

1900-2000: LEAD

Lead is good for us and not poisonous nor dangerous to children and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize LEAD is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.

Bilderesultat for Lead helps guard your health,” a National Lead Co. advertisement said in National Geographic in 1923



OIL COMPANY DUPONT AND GENERAL MOTORS KNEW LEAD GAS WAS A KNOWN POISON WHEN THEY PUT IT IN GASOLINE AS AN ANTI-KNOCK AGENT. 

(Ethanol couldn’t be patented and offered no viable profit for GM, so they were on the lookout for new additives to use. Marketing tetraethyl lead or TEL under the name “Ethyl” (because lead was already known to be poisonous), GM expected to rake in massive amounts of money.)

The next year (1924), there was serious backlash against leaded gasoline after five workers died from TEL exposure at the Standard Oil Refinery in New Jersey, writes Deborah Blum for Wired, but still, the gasoline went into general sale later that decade.

By 1929, the newly formed Lead Industries Association — the now-defunct advocacy group representing dozens of companies — was aware of the growing concerns, with a group secretary complaining at a directors’ meeting of the “undesirable publicity regarding lead poisoning.”

The association fought to protect its business.

In addition to promoting the use of lead, the association threatened lawsuits against its opponents and gave grants to groups that supported its point of view, said David Rosner, a professor at Columbia University, who gained access to internal Lead Industries Association documents as part of a New York City lawsuit against the industry.

“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said David Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”

How General Motors, Standard Oil and DuPont Conspired to Poison Americans
Frank Howard, vice-president of the Ethyl Corporation – a joint venture between General Motors and Standard Oil [...] called leaded gasoline a “gift of God,”.

For decades auto and oil companies denied that lead posed any health risks.


What they left us with here in Flint is a broken economy, they left us with poisoned land, poisoned water and we had politicians that let them walk away here and destroy Flint.”

1930s-1990s: ASBESTOS

Asbestos is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize asbestos is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.

Scientists established a connection between asbestos and lung cancer in the 1930s. Around the same time, doctors were advancing their understanding of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the lining of the lungs caused almost exclusively by asbestos.

While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.

The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos. 


Climate deniers favorite denial think tank, Heartland Institute, talking down the dangers of asbestos:

"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-1

https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/cover-up/


1940s-1960s: DDT

DDT is good for us and not carcinogenic and not a bird killer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize DDT is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.

Bilderesultat for ddt industry cover up


Like a gigantic octopus, the chemical industry put its tentacle all over Congress, the White House and land grant universities.

DDT also has serious health effects on humans. According to the EPA, DDT can cause liver damage including liver cancer, nervous system damage, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.

http://www.pesticides.news/2017-12-07-ddt-toxicity-side-effects-diseases-and-environmental-impacts.html

The WHO is joining forces with the UN Environmental Program to completely phase out DDT worldwide by 2020.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2009-05-18/who-reverses-policy-ddt-control-malaria

https://www.pri.org/stories/2009-05-18/who-reverses-policy-ddt-control-malaria

http://www.pan-germany.org/download/presse/WHO_Statement-BV-PAN-ICIPE-MI_FINAL_V2.pdf

http://www.panna.org/press-release/world-health-organization-ids-health-harms-ddt-malaria


We should consider whether DDT’s human health and environmental costs necessitates moving away from DDT as quickly and sustainably as possible without compromising the gains achieved through decades of use, and the ability for malaria’s eventual eradication. We will show that much new information supports the urgency of moving away.
(PDF) Environmental and human health consequences of DDT used in South Africa for malaria control. Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307606928_Environmental_and_human_health_consequences_of_DDT_used_in_South_Africa_for_malaria_control [accessed Jun 24 2018].

The findings strongly suggest that DDT use increases preterm births, which is a major contributor to infant mortality. If this association is causal, it should be included in any assessment of the costs and benefits of vector control with DDT.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1012-ddt-finally-linked-to-human-health-problems/





1950-1990: NICOTINE

Nicotin is good for us and is not addictive nor related to lung cancer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.


Tobacco industry intentionally manipulates cigarettes to make them more addictive.
"A federal court has ordered Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA to make this statement about the health effects of smoking."

Then the bad news begins to flow.

"Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, acute myeloid leukemia and cancer of the mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung, stomach, kidney, bladder and pancreas."

But this is not stopping climate deniers favourite think tank;
Heartland Institute 2018:

"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".



1990s-2018: C02

C02 is good for us and not related to pollution and climate change and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize fossil fuels is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Shell Knew Fossil Fuels Created Climate Change Risks Back in 1980s, Internal Documents Show


The US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide IS a pollutant is 2007.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf 

“For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence. “This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

(Is there an argument?..Ohh, the science can't be settled then!)










Heartlands tobacco and asbestos lobbying is using the same arguments as when they defend big oil:

Deniers favorite fossil fuel think tank front group, the Heartland Institutes view on tobacco and tobacco smoking. Sound familiar?

Heartland Institute 2018:

"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".

Heartland Institute 2018:

"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."

Heartland Institute 2018:

“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

Heartland Institute 2018:

"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."


More:

Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment

Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.

Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.

Appeals to “protect the children” don’t justify the war being waged against adult smokers.

Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.

"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-1

https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html 

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/secondhand-smoke-fears-overstated-study-finds 

Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS. Tobacco companies have used Enstrom's work to help confuse the public about the causative link between tobacco smoke and disease [...] The the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the (tobacco) companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Enstrom



https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Tobacco cancer denial was a very well-funded, multi-pronged campaign of manufacturing ignorance. It was a right-wing propaganda and lobbying effort funded by conservatives tied to fossil fuels. It featured bought-and-paid-for scientists working outside of their fields to lend academic authority where none existed in reality.

Global warming denial is a very well-funded, multi-pronged campaign of manufacturing ignorance. It is a right-wing propaganda and lobbying effort funded by conservatives tied to fossil fuels. It features bought-and-paid-for scientists working outside of their fields to lend academic authority where none exists in reality.


Hvis temaet var tannhelse:

Tenk deg at tankesmien Sukkersøt, sponset av bakmennnene Karius og Baktus, spredte misinformasjon om søtsaker og sa ting som at fløtekaramell er bra for deg, det er tannkjøttpynt og alle mager koser seg. Ikke får en huller i tennene av det heller. Du burde ikke gå til tannlegen heller. Han er med i en verdensomfattende konspira som har rottet seg sammen om å ødelegge for alle snopelskere. Disse tannlegene tjener seg søkkrike på å tette alle hullene som egentlig ikke er der. Og hver gang, merkelig nok, så finner de alltid noe galt ikke sant? Du slipper aldri unna. Tankesmien Sukkersøt jobber i det skjulte med å få skolene med å slutte med skoletannlegeordningen og setter opp bannere med budskap som "Du får ikke huller i tenna av fløtekaramell, det er venstreskrudde gledesdrepere som tar fra oss en livsstil. Tannhelse-vitenskapen er ikke avgjort på dette området påstår ekkokammer-bloggene som tankesmien Sukkersøt har fått etablert på nettet.

Nå vet dere klimafornektere hvordan dere høres ut når dere sprer deres fossil-brensel-tankesmie-propaganda om klima.

"the fossil fuel industries, which have for decades waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming and to undermine policies devised to address it.

They have created and lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies, paid for rallies and Web sites to question the science, and generated scores of economic analyses that purport to show that policies to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases will have a devastating effect on jobs and the overall economy."
________________________________________________________

Jeremy Grantham, the longtime investor famous for calling the last two major bubbles in the market, is urging capitalists and "mainstream economists" to recognize the looming threat of climate change.
"Capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely ignore [them]," Grantham, who co-founded GMO in 1977, said Tuesday in an impassioned speech at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago. "We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water and we treat air like an open sewer, and we do it all off the balance sheet."
This negligence is due in large part to how short-sighted corporations can be, Grantham said. "Anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn't exist for them, therefore, as I like to say, grandchildren have no value" to them, he said.
- Fred Imbert, CNBC, June 13, 2018

Mer info:
https://rogerfjellstadolsen.blogspot.no/2017/05/klimalgnene-debunket-og-de-beste.html

https://rogerfjellstadolsen.blogspot.no/2017/05/klimalgnene-debunket-og-de-beste_24.html 

_____________________________________________________


 
Og bare for å ta det grundig. Begge de to store svertekampanjene mot klimavitenskapen i nyere tid, NOAA saken og den såkalte Climategate-saken (sic), viste seg å være storm i vannglass, eller å koke suppe på spiker.

Both of  the two major smear campaigns against climate science, the NOAA issue and the so-called Climategate case (sic), turned out to be built on hot air. English version.


La oss starte med NOAA-saken:

LØGNEN FRA DAILY MAIL/NOAA-SAKEN

Denne løgnen er den største svertekampanjen mot den seriøse klimavitenskapen siden den forrige svertekampanjen, den for lengst oppklarte Climategate-saken. Den notoriske klimaløgnmakeren David Rose, brukte, den minst kredible avisen i verden, Daily mail, til å skape en løgnhistorie som selvsagt gikk sin runddans i fornekterverdenen. La oss debunke denne tullesaken i tre enkle steg:

Men først, selve saken: "David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors."

Denne saken, som altså aldri var en sak, klappet sammen som et korthus:

1. Høsten 2017, og ikke le nå, måtte Daily Mail, som altså var de som "breaket" saken, publisere en beklagelse. Hele historien VAR oppspinn:

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01032-17
 

"World leaders had NOT been "duped", as the headline said, and there was no "irrefutable evidence" that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data, as the article had claimed." [...] "We are disappointed with this finding, but we accept it and are publishing the adjudication with prominence in the newspaper and online."


AUUUUUUUUUDA!!!!!!


Her blir den barnslige falske grafen som Daily Mail brukte kraftig avslørt:



Mail on Sunday gets two measurement series to appear as different by using different starting points. Taking the same starting point for the temperature deviation, the two measuring series become identical. This is directly fraudulent by Mail on Sunday.

2. OG, IKKE MINST:

Studien fra NOAA har siden blitt uavhengig bekreftet, senest i en artikkel i Science Advances 4. januar 2017. Her går uavhengige forskere gjennom både NOAA-arbeidet og andre nye anslag for oppvarmingen. De finner at alle anslagene konkluderer likt og bruker korrekte metoder.

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records 
Abstract
Sea surface temperature (SST) records are subject to potential biases due to changing instrumentation and measurement practices. Significant differences exist between commonly used composite SST reconstructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), the Hadley Centre SST data set (HadSST3), and the Japanese Meteorological Agency’s Centennial Observation-Based Estimates of SSTs (COBE-SST) from 2003 to the present. The update from ERSST version 3b to version 4 resulted in an increase in the operational SST trend estimate during the last 19 years from 0.07° to 0.12°C per decade, indicating a higher rate of warming in recent years. We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.

 
Fig. 2 Twelve-month centered moving average of temperature difference series between composite and buoy-only, CCI, and ARC SST anomalies.Values below 0 indicate that the composite series has a cool bias relative to the IHSST record.


Nyere data bekrefter de gamle:


Så hele saken er oppklart.

3. Uansett, for ordens skyld, det handlet ikke engang om dataene var gyldige, kun om hvordan de ble arkivert:

Rasmus Benestad, D.Phil. Seniorforsker ved Meteorologisk institutt og leder for Tekna Klima) forklarer; “Saken dreier seg om en amerikansk temperaturanalyse fra NOAA som ble publisert i det vitenskapelige tidsskriftet Science. Rose baserer seg på amerikaneren John Bates som han omtaler som en varsler. Bates er pensjonert, men var tidligere ansatt ved National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Det er verdt å lese ZekeHausfather sin kritikk av artikkelen til Rose. Hausfather er både klimaforsker og har jobbet med lignende temperaturanalyser, i motsetning til Rose. Men når man går i dybden på Bates sine motforestillinger, viser det seg at den ikke egentlig dreier seg om resultatene er gyldige, men om hvordan dataene ble arkivert.".

Også Bjørn Samset på Cicero oppklarer:

En tidligere ansatt ved NOAA, som nå er gått av med pensjon, kritiserte søndag studien til sin tidligere arbeidsgiver i en artikkel i Mail on Sunday. Artikkelen er skrevet av klimaskeptikeren David Rose og gjentar flere påstander som ble tilbakevist allerede i 2015.

- Kritikken er villedende på grensen til det uredelige, sier Samset.

- NOAA-studien viser det samme som alle andre store analyser av global temperatur, nemlig at når vi tar bedre hensyn til havbøyer og tar med målinger nærmere Arktis, så viser global oppvarming seg å ha vært enda – litt – raskere enn vi trodde. Metodene og resultatene er dessuten grundig bekreftet av uavhengige forskere.

Her er hvorfor:
  • Studien fra NOAA har siden blitt uavhengig bekreftet, senest i en artikkel i Science Advances 4. januar 2017. Her går uavhengige forskere gjennom både NOAA-arbeidet og andre nye anslag for oppvarmingen. De finner at alle anslagene konkluderer likt og bruker korrekte metoder.
  • Dataene fra NOAA-studiet er fritt tilgjengelige, selv om Mail on Sunday-saken hevder det motsatte.
  • Mail on Sunday får to måleserier til å fremstå som ulike ved å bruke ulike utgangspunkt. Tar vi samme utgangspunkt for temperaturavviket, blir de to måleseriene så å si identiske. Dette er direkte uredelig av Mail on Sunday.
  • Alle måleserier som brukes i klimaforskning blir forbedret, år for år. De endringene Mail on Sunday-saken diskuterer er en slik forbedring: Forskere forsøker å ta bedre hensyn til målinger som vi vet er mer nøyaktige enn andre. Her vil det si at bøye-målinger tillegges større vekt enn målinger fra skip (ikke mindre, slik Mail on Sunday hevder) og at antall målestasjoner over land økes fra 4.400 til over 25.000! Dette gjør NOAA-måleserien mye mer fullstendig enn den tidligere har vært, og gjør at denne måleserien nå viser så å si identisk temperaturutvikling som de andre store analysene fra Berkeley, NASA og UK Met Office.


These 6 sentences sums up what is was all about:

"Bates himself later told E&E News that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was." In other words: The issue was never the truth of the global warming pause, which most other scientists agree likely didn't happen. Rather, it was a straightforward debate about data archiving and management.


BONUS
Flere debunkinger:

https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2017/02/06/graph-daily-mail-not-want-see/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Verdens ledende faktasjekker Snopes:

https://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/














Den koko-høyreskrudde konspirabloggen Breitbart og folk fra klimaløgn-trollfabrikk-tankesmien Heartland Institute var "selvsagt" også en del av svertekampanjen




Den solide faktasjekkeren FactCheck.Org oppklarer også:

 ______________________________

 

BONUS - LETS DEBUNK:

THE NEW NOAA SMEAR CAMPAIGN RUNNING IN DENIER BLOGS

"Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend."  


The data are made available on their website as the original data, the quality controlled and the homogenised versions on a station-by-station basis. The methods by which they undertake the analysis are fully documented in several papers in the peer-reviewed literature available from their website

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/

The code they use to determine the adjustments is made available without restriction via their website.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software




https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/breitbart-repeats-bloggers-unsupported-claim-noaa-manipulates-data-exaggerate-warming/


BONUS:

For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.

Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon Brief

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/july2018/GTR_2018July.pdf

Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.


In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 per decade! IN THE PERIOD WHERE CLIMATE DENIERS CLAIM NOAA FUDGED THEIR DATA. LOL.

Climate at a Glance



 

DEN FORRIGE SVERTEKAMPANJEN : CLIMATEGATE (sic)

 


Hacker-angrepet på Climatic Research Unit (CRU) i England.

https://www.nrk.no/urix/klimaforskere-renvasket-1.7201287

"It was a manufactured "controversy" by fossil fuel interests and global warming denialists - timed specifically to disrupt the 2009 and 2011 climate talks and the Cap and Trade bill.

Al Gore og IPPC vant Nobels Fredspris for 2007 og "folk flest" hadde nå fått med seg at menneskeskapte klimaendringer var en realitet.

2009: I København skulle det straks være et viktig klimamøte og i USA skulle det såkalte "cap and trade" lovforslaget få redusert C02 utslippene. Fossil-brensel industrien går inn i panikk-modus. "Noe" måtte gjøres.

La oss se, hva er det billigste trikset i boken? Ahh, svertekampanjer!! Eposter fra Climatic Research Unit (CRU) i England blir stjålet av en hacker. (Så hendig!). Innholdet i disse epostene ble så vridd og vendt og tatt ut av sammenhenger for å "bevise" at den seriøse klimavitenskapen var korrupt.

Alt som kan krype og gå av høyreskrudd  konservativ media i USA gikk selvfølgelig fullstendig bananas. Alle disse rapporterte saken nøyaktig likt, med nøyaktig de samme ordene. Disse mediene hadd blitt foret med setninger og hva de skulle si på forhånd.Så nøye planlagt var altså dette hackerangrepet.


Vår venn Potholer54 oppklarer saken her:



Og, ikke le nå, like før den neste globale klimakonferansen, FNs klimakonferanse i Durban i Sør-Afrika 28 november 2011, blir en ny serie med 5 000 hackede e-poster lagt ut på en russisk server. Nok en gang blir e-postene formidlet via linker i kommentarene i klimaskeptiske blogger. Hackeren skriver, "Dagens avgjørelser bør være basert på all informasjon vi kan få, ikke på "hide the decline (sic)".

Hackerangrepet og oppfølgingen to år etter var "vellykket". Her ser vi forresten hvordan republikanske politikere snur på en femøring etter at "skandalen" er et faktum. Cap and Trade lovforslaget ble det aldri noe av.


HACKERANGREPET PÅ CRU LIGNER MISTENKELIG PÅ USA-VALGET 2016



7/18/12: Police in Norfolk, England, close the investigation into the CRU server breach, with no real leads. While the police have no suspects, lead detective Julian Gregory tells the Guardian that the “targeted” attack “appears to have been done with the intention of influencing the global debate on climate change.” Gregory concludes that the email dumps were timed specifically to disrupt the 2009 and 2011 climate talks.

April 2010 to August 2011: Nine separate investigations clear the scientists—including Mann and Jones—of wrongdoing and note that the scientific consensus on global warming remains strong. Investigators do criticize the University of East Anglia for dodging open records requests. 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/climategate-timeline-wikileaks-hacking-russia-trump/

Men var det hold i anklagene? La oss kikke litt nærmere. Denne svertekampanjen fikk vi "tilfeldigvis" først høre om på bloggen WATTSUPWITHTHAT, som er en blogg sponset av, ikke le, den amerikanske tankesmien Heartland Institute, som er beryktet for sin anti-vitenskapelige virksomhet som inkluderer lobbyisme for tobakk og oljeindustrien.

Alle 9 granskinger, deriblant 6 offisielle som er blitt gjort frifinner forskerne og klimavitenskapen:


Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do: it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness.

Disse konkluderer med at det ikke er hold i kritikken om at forskerne har overdrevet betydningen av klimaendringene, og at gjennomgangen ikke har avdekket noe som svekker konklusjonene til FNs klimapanel. 

LONDON, UK, March 31, 2010 (ENS) - An investigation into leaked emails by British climate scientists that appeared to indicate a conspiracy to manipulate data to bolster a case for global warming has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee today published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit, CRU, at the University of East Anglia. The investigation found no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.

Vår venn Brian Dunning fra den prisvinnende skeptiker siden Skeptoid oppklarer også:

Climategate Demystified

Discover Magazine: Basically, some emails from climate scientists were leaked by a still-unknown hacker, and to some people it indicated knowingly fraudulent activity by the scientists. However, those of us familiar with the way science and scientists actually work knew from the start there was nothing nefarious going on. When the emails were made public, a lot of noise came from the usual places. The deniers went into overdrive. But it turns out they were just spinning their wheels.

"Claims that "hide the decline" meant "hide the fact that global temperatures have been declining" are also unraveled by the timeline. Phil's email was 1999, and 1998 had been the hottest year on record, peaking a global rise throughout the 1990s that nobody disputed, as it was all instrumental data. There had been no decline of global temperatures to hide."



Dataene har blitt gjenskapt i ettertid, noe som er det knusende beviset for at forskerne ikke hadde noe å skjule:

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data." 

Og det er jo hinsides meningsløst at disse forskerne skulle konspirere for å komme frem til et resultat som var det samme som hva all annen forskning viser? Og klimafornektere vil jo ikke engang akseptere at det er en konsensus for AGW. Hvis det ikke engang er konsensus for AGW, hvordan kan det da være en konspirasjon?





Den egentlige skandalen.

Alle anklager mot Michael M. Mann, mannen bak "Hockeykøllen" ble funnet grunnløse:


RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University February 3, 2010 RA-10 Inquiry Committee for the Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann:

Rapporten konkluderer med at det ikke er grunnlag for påstander om at Mann har holdt tilbake eller forfalska data, at han har sletta eller ødelagt e-poster eller annet materiale, eller at han har misbrukt informasjon han har mottatt på privilegert vis.

... the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community … . 

Manns "hockeystick" har blitt bekreftet og forbedret av en rekke større studier i ettertid

Amatørfornektere maser og alltid om at "dataene ikke er tilgjengelige". men, de er jo tilgjengelige. Som f.eks her:

And yes, his "hockeystick" data IS available, like here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php



Lets have a closer look at those emails taken out of context.

 

Thats what denial blogs do. They pull one sentence, or one phrase, or one data point OUT OF CONTEXT. They hope their audience accepts it without looking any further. They want their blogs to be the blinders on the eyes of their readers. "Look here; don't look there."

A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Skeptics claim the words “trick” and “decline” show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.

"Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other “proxy” measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The “trick” that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — “a clever thing to do,” as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer
measurements."http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ 



Here is another from Michael E. Mann:

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction"

In the right context, the meaning is nothing like what denier bloggs wants you to believe. That highlighted part clearly shows he didn't mean the first sentence the way science-denial blogs pretended.

Another common quote is from Kevin Trenberth:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Again, out of context, that sounds pretty damning, but in context, he was not talking about the warming of the entire planet, but rather the flow of energy through the earth, and the fact that there are parts of that system that we do not yet understand. Here is the paper that Trenberth was discussing (Trenberth 2009)

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.and you can find more details at Skeptical Science.
Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming,Climategate did not even demonstrate small-scale corruption of the peer review process, let alone on the scale of the climate science community. In any case, the CRU scientists reviewed only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warmingThat mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals.








FactCheck.org debunker saken en gang for alle.


“ In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded: “

og: Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. … Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust."

til slutt: The truth is that over the 13 years covered by the CRU e-mails, scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted. Reports from the National Academies and the U.S. Global Change Research Program that analyze large amounts of data from various sources also agree, as does the IPCC, that climate change is not in doubt. In advance of the 2009 U.N. climate change summit, the national academies of 13 nations issued a joint statement of their recommendations for combating climate change, in which they discussed the “human forcing” of global warming and said that the need for action was “indisputable.” 





At våre klimagassutslipp øker klodens temperatur/energibudsjettet ER bevist av grunnleggende fysikk og elementær kjemi alene. Det er den samme fysikken som sier at Jorden er rund, den samme fysikken som forteller oss hvorfor fly flyr.

Kunnskapen om klimaet er filtrert gjennom den vitenskapelige metode i 150 år. På denne måten bygges dokumentert og etterprøvbar kunnskap, steg for steg. Metoden produserer ikke, og er heller ikke ment for å produsere, absolutte sannheter og viten, men økt kunnskap. Slik er det – og slik må det også være – i klimaforskningen som for all annen forskning. Store teorier er stort sett alltid bygget på en stor mengde mindre vitenskapelige funn. Og det er nettopp det at alle disse småfunnene er gjort gjennom utførelse av den vitenskapelige metode som gjør de store vitenskapelige teoriene så robuste og troverdige. Det er med andre ord uendelig mange filtere, tester, korrigeringer og innsigelser frem til en får en konklusjon. At mennesker bidrar til klimaendringer er en slik konklusjon. Forskningen gir oss helt tydelige og klare dataer fra en rekke vitenskapelige felter som hver for seg -og sammen, kommer til denne samme konklusjonen: mennesker bidrar til klimaendringer. Dette er ikke prognoser, antydninger eller modeller. Dette er OBSERVERTE dataer fra pollen, årringer, iskjerner, koraller, isbreer, polaris som smelter, havnivået, havtemperatur, økologiske forandringer, Co2-nivået i atmosfæren, den udiskutable temperaturøkningen globalt.


Klimaendringer handler ikke om å tro, det handler om å forstå de prosessene som styrer klimaet, både naturlige og menneskeskapte faktorer.Vitenskap er kunnskap som er basert på forståelse av naturens fysiske lover og fremskaffet ved hjelp av undersøkelser og testing av hypoteser. All kunnskap skal være etterprøvbar, derfor står publisering sentralt innen forskningen. Et krav i klimadebatten bør således være at den skjer på bakgrunn av publisert materiale i vitenskapelige anerkjente tidsskrifter.

En skeptisk tilærming er å kritisk evaluere oppfatninger og påstander, egne inkludert, på grunnlag av empiriske observasjoner. Det er ikke det samme som å være prinsipielt kritisk til etablerte sannheter som ikke passer ens eget verdensbilde. Klimaskeptikere er frekke nok til å påstå at de blir "ekskludert" fra den seriøse forskingen. At vitenskapen "har tatt feil før" og at "nye ideer må få sjansen til å bli hørt". Greit nok, men i denne sammenhengen er poenget fullstendig snudd på hodet.

Galileios konklusjoner stammer fra observasjoner og logikk. Galileos bevis- og logikkbaserte undersøkelsesmetode ble senere kjent som den vitenskapelige metode. Moderne forskere - inkludert klimaforskerne - følger den bevisbaserte vitenskapelige metoden som Galileo var en forkjemper for. Skeptikere som motsetter seg vitenskapelige funn som truer deres ideologi er langt nærmere Galileos trosbaserte kritikere i den katolske kirken. I dag er det klimaskeptikere, flat earthers og kreasjonister som utgjør disse kritikerne.

I motsetning til Galileo og moderne forskere endrer de ikke deres syn når de presenteres med nye bevis, fordi deres ståsted ikke er et resultat av konklusjoner fra den åpne vitenskapelige forskningen, men fra sterke ideologiske overbevisninger.

Når klimaskeptikere i Norge og andre land henviser til at enkeltstudier viser at klimaendringene ikke er menneskeskapte, så er dette altså arbeider som allerede er tatt opp og vurdert opp mot resten av litteraturen. Og deretter tilbakevist av andre studier. De rokker altså ikke ved det store bildet. Tvert imot har gjentagende kritikk gjort at kunnskapen er testet fra utallige vinkler, med det resultat at hovedkonklusjonene er blitt mer robuste.

Hvis klimaskeptikerne allikevel ønsker å lage studier som har til formål å motbevise det man har slått fast, har de på lik linje med alle andre forskere muligheten for å publisere funnene sine i vitenskapelige publikasjoner. 
 

Det handler ikke om enkeltpersoner eller enkeltorganisasjoner. Det er kloden selv som sier fra. La fagfolkene, klimaforskerne få gjøre jobben sin. Det er ikke verre enn å stole på at tannlegen din, en annen fagperson, hjelper deg med å bli kvitt huller i tennene.




































Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...