When you are willing to pay for global warming “research” that has a predetermined outcome, all you do is open the door for fraud.
Reader Mark emailed an example today.
Please consider Top University Passed Off Rivals’ Research to Bankroll Climate Change Agenda.
One of the world’s leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as ‘a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain’. The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.
On Friday, the CCCEP – based jointly at the London School of Economics and the University of Leeds – will host a gala at the Royal Society in London in the peer’s honour. Attended by experts and officials from around the world, it is to mark the tenth anniversary of the blockbuster Stern Review, a 700-page report on the economic impact of climate change. The review was commissioned by Tony Blair’s Government.
Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.
The Mail on Sunday investigation reveals today that:
- The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which has given the CCCEP £9 million from taxpayers since 2008, has never checked the organisation’s supposed publication lists, saying they were ‘taken on trust’;
- Some of the papers the CCCEP listed have nothing to do with climate change – such as the reasons why people buy particular items in supermarkets and why middle class people ‘respond more favourably’ to the scenery of the Peak District than their working class counterparts;
- Papers submitted in an explicit bid to secure further ESRC funding not only had nothing to do with the CCCEP, they were published before it was founded;
- The publication dates of some of these papers on the list are incorrect – giving the mistaken impression that they had been completed after the CCCEP came into existence.
Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said: ‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.’
Prof Tol said: ‘Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP. It came out of David Anthoff’s masters thesis. At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception for financial gain. That is what this is.’
Fake Research
The Daily Caller reports Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research.
A global warming research center at the London School of Economics got millions of dollars from UK taxpayers by taking credit for research it didn’t perform, an investigation by The Daily Mail revealed.
The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did.
Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as an ethical conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies in the U.S. — which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan — saw the agency give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors, according to EPA public disclosures.
The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”
Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money their researchers get in public funds if their investigations find positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies that will come to conclusions the government wants.
Predetermined Outcome
All you have to do is pay for it.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Stick to economics which is why I read your blog!
Don’t listen to this guy, Mish. (Even though you are SO WRONG about this election being over.)
Looks like Mish’s wrongthink has triggered you. You should retreat to a safe space to calm down.
So typical of the fuckwits that belong to the cult of Austrian economics.
Take away their silly cliches, and they’re incredibly hypocritical BS, and their own bias, and what you are left with is just another group of Americans, better known to the rest of the world as poor (want to be rich) white trash.
I guess all the cosmologists are wrong too, and that black holes and the Big Bang Theory does not exist.
And all those scientist’s who studied cellular biology, who claim that DNA drives the species is wrong also.
There are the dumb, gormless and feckless.
And then there are Austrian economists.
About a hundred words of gibberish.
I mention gormless and feckless, and look who turns up.
Hey Ron, do you realise there is electricity nowadays?
I suggest you look into it, it might be useful in that cave you live in.
It’s always hilarious how the arguments of the warmists always drift back to “consensus”, as if that’s a remotely scientific way of determining anything. Scientific consensus isn’t just sometimes wrong, it’s wrong *all the time*. In the past year, we’ve seen loads of long-held beliefs shattered in multiple fields.
There’s “proof” in science, and there’s politics. There’s no “it’s true because a majority thinks it’s true”. And yet that’s the standard of proof that warmists constantly proffer up. When their hilariously silly “evidence” is questioned, the next step is always ridicule. This is what passes for science today.
Global warming is totally within the real of economics now.
Scams are always economics based, someone has an agenda to profit from it.
Since gloBull warming is the biggest tax scheme to date, and that’s saying alot, it’s totally fair game.
…. and what, economic fraud and the carbon credit scheme that bilks billions of dollars out of the economy has nothing to do with economics? Okee Dokey then,
Garry, blog writers want readers and commenters and in case you haven’t noticed, Mish gets far more comments on his political blogs.
Not surprising in the least nowadays. Standards are for bigots. Didn’t you get the memo?
I love global warming — it means the economy is growing.
Out of control Zioglobalist “scientism” used to pilfer tax money for nefarious purposes. It’s all just a perpetual rehash of Friedman economics applied to Latin America. No, they’re not smarter than us, but immeasurably less ethical.
Zioglobalist “scientism”
… hysterobesitic hissyfitology?
It’s called “pay to say.”
“All you have to do is pay for it.”
Or, better yet, get the taxpayers to pay for it.
I am 45 years old.
When I was a child, scientific consensus was that dinosaurs were slow-witted reptiles.
Then it changed to be that some may have been warm-blooded and other actually took care of their offspring.
It was scientific consensus that dinosaurs had gone extinct 65 million years ago, to only now change to birds descending from dinosaurs and therefore dinosaurs never really disappeared.
And the consensus about dinosaur scaly skin? Well, a lot of them were feathered.
Scientific consensus thru history means nothing, as history provides untold examples of ‘consensus’ slowly disappearing.
Back then, in the good ol’ days, scientific method was used to prove or disprove claims and overturn previous beliefs. Today, political pressure and funding of universities keeps the truth at bay because there is money to be made. Scientists are controlled today, so you really can’t believe anything that comes out of universities anymore. Politicians have ruined it for a whole generation now to come.
For what it’s worth:
I’m 53, lived in BC all my life, been an avid outdoorsman since I was a boy. I’ve been to places 35 years ago and marveled at the ice then, and returned recently and it’s shockingly obvious that the ice is melting. Argue about cause all you wish, argue about effects (very regional BTW, significant portions of Canada are likely to be “improved” for human habitation, not so much in other places), argue about what can and should be done, but to deny that the climate is changing rapidly (in geological terms pretty much instant change) and dramatically, with vast implications for our future is either disingenuous or ignorant.
http://forums.clubtread.com/26-conservation-corner/5059-garibaldi-s-wedgemount-lake-glacier-retreating.html has some historical and current photos for comparison. Local hiking/camping site, no reason for bias there.
I have no agenda whatsoever, I do believe the evidence of my own eyes, and I’m pretty sure (not as positive as I am about the ice disappearing, but still pretty sure) that it is indeed the result primarily of the vast changes we are making to the planet.
Regardless of cause, the reality of climate change just might have long term investment and geopolitical implications that should be taken into account, hmmm?
Check out some info on the pacific climate shift in the mid 90’s. Then take a look at the long term oceanic cycles that are documented. Start with the PDO and AMO and go from there. The PDO directly impacts the climate of BC and has for a very long time. Land use and simple population growth, as just 2 of many examples, has indeed impacted the globe, but they only want to point to CO2 as a bad guy. Think of this. How does a large dam impact the climate above and below the dam? Then look at what large scale wind and solar farms do to the local climate. We definitely play a role, just not the one the activists want you to think about.
Regards e
This is very real. Weather patterns ARE changing in British Columbia and Alberta. As an engineer working across Oil Sands mines in Fort McMurray and in-situ Oil Sands in Cold Lake, every single one of our Canadian companies recognizes that global climate change is a REAL thing. The path forward isn’t clear, but it is sad and silly to see these posts. When IHS employees from Texas are willing to discuss the effects of climate change, I’m not sure how Mish can get away with ignoring the possibility.
I like reading this blog, but all of the posts that hilariously thought Trump had a chance or that global warming is a farce are great fodder for lols. =)
It is possible that global warming is indeed happening.
I never said otherwise.
What I said is there is no real evidence it is manmade, if it is happening, the studies are biased, and it is absurd to make predictions regarding a 100 or 1000 year period about changes that have taken place over hundreds of millions of years.
As for Trump. Yes, he had a chance. at least 50-50 all he had to do was not blow the first debate. His performance in the third debate may have been good enough had it happened in the first debate.
Don’t link unrelated ideas together when they fit like zebras and moon rocks.
Mish
Mish, we have been coming out of the last Ice Age for thousands of years. Including the LIA, little ice age, since 1850 when the alarmist temperature baselines start for the warming. Sea levels have been going up for 20,000 years. The man made items are small in comparison to some of the natural variation taking place. Ask someone who is concerned about CO2 and if it is a logarithmic or linear relationship to temperature and see if they really know what they are talking about. Then ask them about ECS, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and see if they really know what they are talking about. Chances are most people who will not have a clue, but still feel strongly about something they have no clue about in the end. Just sayin, facts get in the way sometime, so they are ignored.
Yes we coming out of a ice age but according to four independent sources spread over the last century have documented and concluded that the earth is going into a ice age. Of course when this was presented in a paper to the royal Scientific society the climate zealots demand it be censored. Because it flies in the face of those who depend on the funds that say the earth is warming and only money will save the earth I,am not going to link the pape. Find the source your self so all who search will know it based on thier own diligence. Keep up the good work of , trying in to all things relevant to common sense Mish
Here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/
Is a fascinating time line of global warming. Recommend you link to the agitprop doctored data
Cited in the link.
Mish,
Global warming is physics. CO2 and other larger molecules have the ability to absorb photons to a much greater degree than O2 and nitrogen. When disturbed, they re-emit those photons as heat. This is well understood and not questioned by physicists.
Then the question becomes “is there a greater concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is it enough to change the average temperature?” And the answer is absolutely. While the concentrations are small, they block IR enough from reflecting back into space to change the temperature couple of degrees. This is math, not guessing.
Then the question becomes is the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases caused by humans? Well scientists have done a number of reviews to determine how much oil, coal and gas have been extracted over the last couple of hundreds of years and done the calculations. Answer? We’ve burned more than enough.
Final question: what does that hold for the future? Theories abound. Results are somewhere between pain for some in some areas to a catastrophic extinction event.
Physics and math are really your friends. Are there scam artists taking advantage of AGW to make a few bucks? Of course. Are there scam artists taking advantage of capitalism? Of course. Does that mean we should reject capitalism?
Right on. Until someone can come up with a plausible explanation of why temperatures aren’t increasing when thermodynamics says they should be, the argument against man made global warming has no basis.
I’m not 100% against man made global warming. Had man not burned fossil fuels, we would likely be entering an ice age right now. So we need to limit CO2 production, but we can overdo it and cause the opposite problem.
You are hilarious mishmash.
Here you are, like your fellow troglodytes from Mises, claiming the science of global warming is wrong.
And yet there is ZERO science to prove Austrian economics is right.
LOL . . . You cannot make this shit up!
Climate is cyclical. It warms and cools. No scientist knows what the global temperature will be in 2100.
The evidence is very clear, as seen in the NAS final report and others.
Yes – climate is changing and the ice is disappearing in BC. I wish I knew how to insert a graphic here or two here, so that I could show you a longer-termed picture.
Image 1 is of Glacier Bay in Alaska, probably north of the icefields you have visited. The icefield there extended to the mouth of the Icy Strait in 1760-1780. By 1860 it had retreated to the end of West Arm, and by 1912 it had retreated all the way up the Tarr Inlet.
Image 2 is one of many temperature reconstructions of the last 1000 years. There are many problems with the hockey-stick reconstruction. Many reconstructions show a cold period ending sometime in the mid-1600’s called the Little Ice Age. Warming has continued since that time.
What I am trying to point out with these two examples, is that warming has been happening during a period in which elevated CO2 levels play no role. Our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere may contribute somewhat to the warming we are seeing, but there are other, larger factors at play as well.
precisely
There are other factors in play, assuming it is happening and not just some random variation
You r another fraud blogger such as Michael Schneider who do not want to see problems resolved. U want these issues to continue not resolved. u r as evil as u appear to be. Trump destroyed Clinton 5/5 times, including that Sept 7th Lauer forum and the Al Smith dinner. Trump smythed her 5/5 !!
I would add that during the Medieval Warm Period (around year 1000) the treeline was 100 km further north in the Canadian north. The glaciers that are currently melting in Alaska are revealing mature forests. There is peer-reviewed scientific evidence that shows that the current temperatures are not unprecedented.
See: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4
The polar bears and coral reefs clearly survived and thrived. Warmer periods (the MWP, Minoan and Roman Warm Periods) marked high points for civilizations.
The claim is that all of the warming we see is unprecedented. That isn’t true, but it makes great headlines. Climate happens over long periods of time. The rest is weather.
Clearly man isn’t the only thing that’s effected the earths climate, but the only explanation for the warming trend over the last 100 or so years is an increasing amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Almost certainly caused by burning fossil fuels.
Let me guess, you also believe the Russian’s are responsible.
First of all, different places on planet earth warm and cool on different cycles, just as the poles move, as is happening now, causing some place to lose ice while other gain. The current warming cycle, which ended many years ago, made a lower high and is rolling over and headed toward a new mini ice age, which you will see with your own eyes when the Maunder Minimum gets into full swing in 2022. My advice is to start looking for property much further south, as you will be praying for globull warming shortly.
Russians? Where did that come from?
Anyway, I’m well aware of the natural variability, and of the possibility that we are indeed preventing a new mini ice age. If so, given that we’re still losing ice and warming the planet then I’d say we’re a bit too enthusiastic about it. There are a few places amply cold but too dry for glaciers now that will see an increase, but far outweighed by the lost ice. Antarctic ice shelves and Greenland come to mind. Not a small dry valley on the dry side of the Himalayas.
Does nothing about the point that denying climate change exists is kind of the opposite of a prudent way forward. Politicians and their ilk can’t be trusted anywhere anytime, but most of the real field science types are much more trustworthy and in strong agreement.
I don’t like driving with my head in the sand.
How many scientists are being funded to disprove human caused climate change? I would imagine it would be pretty darned hard to get funding for THAT. Scientists are humans, just like politicians, and they too can be corrupted by power, money and fame.
The oil industry funds a lot of research into disproving man made global warming.
And is immediately dismissed as flawed, not because of bad science, but because of who funded it. If that is the test, then why should we even consider anything coming from a government with obvious and stated agendas?
The existence of a fringe of venal jump-on-any-bandwagon-you-see-profit-in types does nothing to change my views, BTW. No surprise that there is some of that involved. Surprising if there wasn’t.
Also not surprising that any such cases are trumpeted as proof that the whole thing is a crock, as we know that the same companies that manage PR for the Democrats and/or Republicans, tobacco, pharma, foreign despots, banksters, arms dealers, anyone else who wants good PR and can pay for it are also managing the climate controversy with similar tactics. You all know this.
You outed yourself as a Troll with your incoherent rant that anything and everything is a conspiracy against, well, whatever. The climate debate (global warming) is a crock o’ schist (forgive geological joke) and you have no idea what changes we are making to this planet.
It is really not a question of whether the climate is changing. Climate is rarely static, and has been Changing for the whole history of the planet. Climate Change is a political phrase. Scientifically, climate change should include both warming and cooling. But Climate Change is an Orwellian political catch-phrase for a War on Global Warming, whose alleged cause is CO2 (carbon dioxide). The Global Warming War Cry is propaganda, like Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, impending Libyan massacres, the 4-year old child in Aleppo, etc.
If you buy the Climate Change rallying cry, in political terms that means being against CO2 (carbon dioxide) as the alleged culprit. This conveniently translates into global carbon taxes and tradable tax credits on Global Climate Gas Trading Exchanges like those owned by George Soros. Ranks up there with John Law’s Mississippi Company as among the great global scams. No doubt lots of tithes to the Clinton Foundation and others in on the game.
The whole CO2 scam is based on a deeply flawed model that includes only 30% of the mostly unknown factors causing climate change. The model predicts global temperature increases, but the global temperature has decreased over the past 30 years; of course, the model supporters have all sort of excuses, like the cooling effects of volcanoes venting sulfur and enriching the cooling global sulfate layer. CO2, in chemist’s terms, is an impurity, being only 0.03 percent of breathable air, 30 times less abundant than argon, a gas that goes unnoticed. No wonder Science magazine published an article a few months back lamenting that most of the nation’s science teachers do not believe in global warming. Yet, the media touts a non-existent scientific consensus.
Of course, some areas warm at the same time that others cool, so you can find examples to both support and refute global warming.
The global temperature has not decreased over the past 30 years. This year will likely be the warmest year ever recorded.
What I have noticed about climate change is that scientists have proven that it has been going on for as long as the earth has existed, warmer cooler whatever and apparently man, despite his immense ego, has had little to nothing to do with it. So just quit with destroying economies over it, accept it and deal with it.
What did these places look like before the snow and ice piled on top of them for centuries? There was a time when it wasn’t there and now it isn’t there again. Which is better and why? What if the glaciers prove to have been a bad thing? I also recall the bedwetters wringing their hands over a melting glacier in Norway. You know what was there when it finished melting? A Viking era village. So, when it was occupied, was that normal or global warming? Did the Vikings with the buried village think glacierization was good or bad and were evil non-existent at the time corporations or non-existent fossil fuels to blame? It may have been the evil farting of millions of bison or Wooly Mammoths. See how silly the global warming debate is? It’s been 1,100 years since the idiot King Canute ordered the tide not to come in and fools still think government will somehow be able to control the weather.
“I’m 53, lived in BC all my life, been an avid outdoorsman since I was a boy. I’ve been to places 35 years ago and marveled at the ice then, and returned recently and it’s shockingly obvious that the ice is melting.”
But what you are seeing has happened before. It isn’t unprecedented.
California has had droughts that have lasted 100 years. I haven’t seen a 100 year California drought in my lifetime. I have lived in California since the late 1970’s. Nearly 40 years.
The climate is changing constantly. Droughts form for years such as the dust bowl of the Midwest almost one hundred years ago. Look at the region now. Yes, parts of the world are warming while others are cooling. It has nothing to do with mankind and everything’s have our sun and planetary changes. Quit looking at 20-40 year changes and panicking. We will run out of clean drinking water for everyone long before we burn up the planet.
Getting the outcome you want by paying for it. Isn’t that why Exxon Mobil funds climate research as well? At least it’s their money not mine.
The Global Warming scam is policy with the current administration. Here is one evaluation of the paper that took a specifically designed buoy data gathering system and adjusted those temperature readings to those of ship engine intakes. That is indeed an eyebrow raiser. However, it accomplished the goal of eliminating the 20 year hiatus in temperature rise and in the face of a 10% rise in CO2 during the same period. Yeah, that is just one small example of the agenda driven science in the CAGW community. They want to fix it for you, you know, fix it for you.
Science is not done through consensus, but the funding is. That the fact Jack!
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
I hope some of you read the link I posted above. That link is from a top professional in this field, from last year, on just one instance of what is being discussed in this post. It was a significant, and blatent, instance of proported science via administration directive. I placed the post without logging in the WP account inadvertently, just as another on this thread. Regards e
Darn!! It is an absolute fact that Doggerland was lost as a result of global warming and stories like this will keep us from documenting the inconvenient truth! I had really hoped that somebody was finally going to be held responsible for the total loss of Doggerland’s rare flora and fauna!
It’s Bush’s fault!
Another of those usual suspects thing exposed.
S
Why do people with bearish economic tendencies so often are also extreme right wing ideologues? I am a mainstream Democrat and a long term economic pessimist. As far as climate change goes, we’ve just experienced the hottest 15 out of 16 months in modern world history. There is no debate in the sane scientific world. They are all on the same page. And those who reject climate change are also rejecting modern science. Don’t be a friggin dope on this issue.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records
I am tired of debating such nonsense
But for starters – The earth has gone through numerous cycles over hundred of millions of years, it is beyond idiotic to pretend one can look a 100 or even a 1000 year period and make a reasonable analysis, especially when
1. the research is mostly paid for by biased proponents of the theory
2. the claims are adjusted and readjusted to show there is global warming
3. data for much of the time is scant
and most importantly, it is even more idiotic to believe government will do anything sensible about it, if indeed it is happening.
The trend is away from gasoline etc, even without government prop jobs.
Mish
Well said. I’d like to “like” or “rec” that numerous times but I have noticed it is unnecessarily difficult to do on this otherwise first rate website. Maybe the design guys could make it easier for myself and other technically challenged Boobi Americani?
There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence beyond temperature measurements that back the data. Shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, lower sea ice extent. These are all following the same general trend as the temperature data.
The same data is shown by satellite measurements and ground measurements and many nations are showing the same data. If it’s all a conspiracy, it must be the greatest conspiracy ever.
I was cold yesterday, and hot today. What’s up with that? The end is most assuredly near.
You’re talking about weather. Not climate.
So when it’s the hottest summer on record it is climate, but when it’s not, it’s weather. Got it.
Have you boned up on the sun’s two major cycles ? We just came out of the most active period of solar heating activity in 180 years… In the northern hemisphere, the ice is retreating, but in Antarctica, the icecap is increasing. By the way, the only thing that was tracked in the global warming ‘study”, was Co2 and temperatures. I think we really do not have the scientific capability to conclude anything because there are way to many factors to consider, but politicians won’t ever admit to that… not those control freaks.
The growing sea ice around Antarctica has been explained by an increase in fresh water runoff from Antarctica. The fresh water is less dense than the salty ocean water and floats at the surface. It has a higher freezing temperature than the ocean water so it freezes farther away from the pole. There is no fresh water to runoff at the north pole, so we don’t see the same effect.
The issue is not what you think it is, Lawrence. No one disputes that there is climate change because duh the earth’s climate is always changing. Some of us dispute the anthropogenic part of the current scam. Please address the real issue.
The Earth SHOULD be warmer than 100 yrs ago because:
1.) The intensity of the sun changes over time.
2.) The human population has been growing exponentially, so they heat the air.
3.) The miles of paved roads have increased in the past 100 years. After 12 hrs of exposure at 90% absorptivity daily, a net heat gain to the Earth takes place.
4) Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect.
Global Warming?
Nobody talks about that anymore.
Climate Change is the new way to pick pockets
Remember Ozone holes? They are milking that cow again too. Airconditioning in homes is the new boogie man.
We moved away from freon decades ago. At least in the US.
“CCCEP”?!? Good grief. They’re practically *begging* us to conclude they’re left wing nutjobs…..
Bingo…..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/23/climate-scam-exposed-taking-credit-and-money-for-anothers-work/
The earth’s biological productivity is rising rapidly (14% in 30 years) mainly due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere reports Matt Ridley at The Royal Society in a video with a transcript. This looks important and should be more widely discussed. Although it looks like good science to me, many environmentalists will hate it. Youtube for “Matt Ridley greening”.
At the very least this scam has made us drain aquifers to grow corn to put in gas tanks. We akso destroyed the land which this corn was grown on. Then there is the issue of birds and bats being killed by windmills. The you can talk about wanting money
Best of all, we have to pay for it to see what’s in it.
The one thing that I’ve noticed is that as a kid in the 70’s it would take me all day to get burned at the beach. And we put on baby oil vs sunblock. Today I get the same burn after about 1-2 hours Same beach. So did my skin change? Something seeems different. Just curious wh I get burned dimming faster
All I can say is if government is going to have a war on global warming, be prepared to die in a ball of fire…..because no matter what they do, it’s bound to only get hotter. It’s how our government works. War on drugs, crime, poverty, terror…ALL, always result in those dedicated battles only resulting in making things worse.
If a police force could eliminate crime, would we need police anymore? People are not stupid and will not deliberately eliminate their jobs. Government grows, not because of what a great job they do but because of their great failures to do just about everything they are mandated to do. And with each failure they somehow believe that not only should they double down on their failures but take on even more responsibilities of which they will fail miserably as well.
But but but, sometimes governments win wars! Well ok, there’s always a winner & a loser. War does not determine who is right, rather, who is left.
As far as military wars are concerned, while we have the greatest military force in history and have spent incredible amounts of money to do so, we have not won a war since WWII. But we have been responsible for killing millions, so there is at least that!
No, our government’s future can only be assured by their continued failure. If they actually fixed something we would quickly figure out that we didn’t need them anymore.
As far as the citizens of the world, it looks as though the only future we can be certain of is a boot firmly placed upon our necks. Government will NEVER cede power back to the people….we just aren’t safe controlling our own lives and choices.
I want to know who decided that the climate of the last 30 years is actually the most optimal for our planet, for the next millennia.
Frankly I am quite happy for the planet’s climate to change. History has always proven man to be incredibly versatile and able to adapt to any conditions. I cannot really see the need to worry about it.
As long as the change is gradual, I tend to agree. Problem is we can hit a tipping point where positive feedbacks can spiral things out of control. There’s a lot of methane gas deposits in the ocean that are very temperature sensitive. A little warming can melt some. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than C02 so it will cause more warming, which will lead to more melting and so on. It’s believed to have happened in the past and led to extinction events.
I see that all The Mish denier fans are out in force on this one!
http://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/
Excellent post, thanks MISH, & some excellent comments.
The Warming/Climate thing is a total scam, designed to paint the picture that industrial man is ruining our planet, & enrich the elites along the way.
For non-scientists, like myself, I recommend Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear as an introduction to the scam. published 2005, before the Climategate revelations of “scientists'” machinations, it’s a good intro to the science, politics & finances of the con.
Next I would read climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s book on the science & the political background of the corrupt IPCC: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. http://www.drtimball.com
A must read is Prof. Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth global warming: the missing science.
For an insight into the elites’ thinking (who are driving the scam)
http://www.c3headlines.com click on Quotes. Also many great graphs & articles.
John Doran.
Reading the details of the article, there isn’t a question about the content of any of the papers cited, there’s a question about citing papers that had nothing to do with the CCCEP. This may be a result of deliberate fraud. It may also be a clerical error (the Daily Mail mentions 6 or 7 questionable papers among ‘520 research and policy outputs and 139 media articles’ published).
In fact, regarding one the questionable papers cited ‘Equity Weighting And The Marginal Costs Of Climate Change’, the author, Prof Richard Toll acknowledges
‘Discussions with [various authors] and Nick Stern have shaped our thinking, without implicating them in any error or opinion.’
So to me this seems like a clerical error or an error regarding defining the impact of the CCCEP or those who currently work for it.
I could also add that if there were enough amateur armchair experts denying the theory of relativity as there are denying the theory of climate change, maybe time and space would justifiably implode??
Theory is just that, and climate deserves research as it is a fascinating, important and complex topic.
If we adjusted our society to every theory we would have chaos, a good enough reason to willingly accept counter theory in argument, something that lies close to scientific principal.
How complex is complex?
Popular belief being swayed by political agenda fed through scientific activity deserves recognition. That is to say that a form of confirmation bias unrelated to the object of study may have been introduced purposefully. Climate is not empirical as there is no reference state by which to measure it, you could favour the survival of a lichen, a person, or a politician, or neither.
If it is neither, what are we doing?
Observing, and obviously contributing our little quota of change by being here to do so.
Further, it has been suggested that climate agenda is aimed at creating a global policy theme designed to integrate human activity and perception under a unique mantra that may be used to override existing individual positions, absorbing them into this concern.
That said, good stewardship of our surroundings is a high ideal, so let’s not ruin the reputation needed to advise on it by skipping the necessary scrutiny.
And just to give a chance for the accused to defend themselves:
http://www.cccep.ac.uk/news/response-to-article-by-david-rose-in-the-mail-on-sunday/
Responding to the publication today of an article by David Rose in ‘The Mail on Sunday’, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, said: “This article is riddled with serious mistakes, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and creates a wholly false impression of the work of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. We note that David Rose and ‘The Mail on Sunday’ have a track record of promoting climate change denial and misrepresenting the work of researchers, so we are not surprised at being targeted by them. As an example of the errors, the article cites Professor Richard Tol, who claims that one of the papers which he co-authored, ‘Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change’, should not have been cited as an output by one of the members of the Centre. But the article was published in 2009 in the journal ‘Ecological Economics’, after the Centre was founded on 1 October 2008, and was co-authored by Professor Cameron Hepburn, who was at the time, and still is, a member of the Centre. When the Economic and Social Research Council carried out a regular mid-term review of the Centre, we submitted a list of 520 research and policy outputs, including 276 published journal articles, which had been produced by members of the Centre during its first phase between 2008 and 2013. This list, which is published on the Centre’s website, explicitly identifies those papers that had been co-authored by members of the Centre, but which had not been funded by the Centre, such as the paper by Professor Tol and Professor Hepburn. We have discovered that seven publications in the list of 276 should have been identified as not having received Council funding, but were not, and we have notified the Council of the mistake. These mistakes will have had no bearing on the decision by the Council to continue funding for the Centre between 2013 and 2018. We were evaluated by a panel of experts, and these publications were not part of our core research programme. Mr Rose’s article also mistakenly confused the list of publications that was submitted to the Council for the mid-term review and the list of publications separately attributed to the Centre on RCUK’s ‘Gateway to Research’ database, which did not exist at the time that the mid-term review was carried out. The list of publications that was submitted to the mid-term review is available here: http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CCCEP_Publications.pdf”
I should add that the Daily Mail is a UK paper that has as much to say about the Kardashians and Lindsay Lohan’s latest antics as it does about any serious topic, so I’d take anything published by it’s ‘journalists’ with a very large pinch of salt
“I’d take anything published by it’s ‘journalists’ with a very large pinch of salt”
You can say that about any main stream media these days. I get better Quality news from Zero Hedge, than the major networks.
I really like this blog, but this post has nothing to do with the validity of any one piece of research – it represents instead one intitustion taking credit for fradulently taking credit for research irregradless of what that research contains. Your blog loses credibility when you post things like this.
I did not even comment on global warming
I commented on global warming fraud.
Was it not fraud?
If only we would invest as much energy into projections of our government, it’s inevitable destruction of individual rights and liberties and eventual financial collapse due to economic corruption and fictional “science”.
It is a waste of time showing the fallacies of climate change. As long as those in power continue this farce nothing will change. All the while they are indoctrinating our children in school to believe a lie. One lie among many.
i remember watching one of those standardized programmes (hoax from start to finish)
about global warming about 10 years ago.
it was all about how global warming leads to more global warming ad infinitum.
1 feed back loop always amplifies an existing trend, until you get planet earth warming
by (just mention any number you like) x degrees Celsius (say 4-5 degrees)
by end century; sea levels rising by several metres.
how is it that these feedback loops always amplify the existing trend,
and none acts to reverse it?
It’s because warming of the earth melts methane deposits in the ocean and increases atmospheric water levels. Both of which are greenhouse gasses.
Nuclear power and electric cars. Problem solved.
Check out Al Gore’s movie Inconvenient Truth. We’re supposed to be in crisis by now. It was required viewing at New England high schools when it came out. I wish it still were.
When I was in High School in the ’60’s “Reefer Madness” was required viewing.
Now it is considered both the worst and silliest of movies and watched for entertainment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness
Regardless of the validity of AGW or CAGW, the proposed mechanisms for reducing it are ripe for massive fraud. Years ago, I saw on PBS some guy in the Amazon jungle using a GPS receiver to locate and catalog trees to sell to carbon emitters as carbon sinks. YGTBFKM…
What is the ideal temperature of the earth?
Is there such a thing?
My wife thinks so.
Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
Ponzi
A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
How does that apply here?
We’ve always had destructive hurricanes, but Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change. — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)
Simply false. There were more people living in the path of Matthew, than in 1859.
The 1906 San Francisco quake was more destructive than the previous big quake, because a large population lived there in 1906.
The Fort Tehon quake was far less damaging than the next Big One will be, as the population has been mega-sized since then.
Whatever the near-term (manufactured?) trend , “creative” humans…especially Zioglobalists…will interpret and publicize it to further their own best interests.
The exponential growth of consumer capitalism made possible by the abundance of relatively inexpensive fossil fuel energy is what is straining the earth’s ecosystem. Global climate change, if indeed being observed, is a symptom not a cause. 7 Billion people vying for a piece of the “American Dream” of unlimited consumption on a finite planet can’t end well.
Nonsense. Akin to the 1970s thinking of the nonsense Limits to Growth. For grown up economist thinking read The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian Simon.
Considering that a trillion dollar carbon trading floor is at stake, the financial elite will do anything to sell the warmist mime as ‘settled science’ — an oxymoron in and of itself. If global cooling could be used to set up cap and trade, cooling would be ‘settled science’ and warmists would be called ‘deniers’.
Climatology has been astroturfed by the financial elite.