DNR Censors All Climate Change Info
Key facts, scientific consensus on climate change and Great Lakes removed.
Gov. Scott Walker. Photo from the State of Wisconsin.
Climate change censors driven by science denial and obeisance to polluters these days at the GOP-managed, Scott Walker-redefined “chamber of commerce mentality” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are at it again.
Not content with having already stripped content and links from an agency webpage about climate change – – deletions I documented some years ago and which I have frequently referenced – – the ideologues intent on scrubbing science off these pages and sowing doubt and confusion about the consensus view of experts worldwide about climate change have edited, deleted and otherwise compressed information in order to whitewash long-standing concepts and facts off a climate change page about the Great Lakes – – the same way, I will add, that Walker edited and watered-down the Wisconsin Idea, which has for decades had been the University system’s historic mission statement.
It’s a continuation of Walker’s deliberate destruction of the DNR – – which we also learned he is considering completely breaking apart to further hamstring and weaken public science, conservation and pollution enforcement while further playing to corporate donors and manipulating GOP base voters to help embed partisan Republican advancement and entrenchment by propagandizing that government – – and especially agencies like DNR which Walker has intentionally doomed – – does not work for them.
This is the text on the page as its freshly updated:
The Great Lakes and a changing world
As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The effects of such a change are also being debated but whatever the causes and effects, the DNR’s responsibility is to manage our state’s natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, drought, tornadoes, ice/snow or severe heat. The DNR staff stands ready to adapt our management strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, waterways, plants, wildlife and people who depend on them.
That is but a fraction of what had been there until earlier today. Gone are references to known “human activities” contributing to a warming planet, warming’s contributions to changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns, extreme weather events, drought, species and economic losses are among other truths whitewashed off this official, taxpayer-financed website.
Chillingly, this entire line – – with its positive message and a call to action – – is now deleted:
The good news is that we can all work to slow climate change and lessen its effects.
As are multiple links to climate change resources, many specific to the Great Lakes materials – – despite the title of the page – – “The Great Lakes and a changing world.”
Here are the full edits the DNR is sneaking through without fanfare to unsuspecting readers on that webpage – – changes caught by a webpage monitoring service.
Deletions are shown with a black line through them, words which were untouched remain in normal print, and the highlighted wording becomes part of the new text sandwiched together into what appears on what is a heavily-censored page, but without any way for the reader to spot the edits and altered meaning.
In short, the guts of this page are now gone, or sanitized.
This is Orwellian and propagandistic.
The Great Lakes and a changing world Earth´s climate As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is changinggoing through a change. Human activities that increase heat–trapping (“green house”) gases The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are the main cause. Earth´s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F since 1850 being debated and researched by academic entities outside the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Increasing temperatures have led to changes in rainfall patterns and snow and ice cover. These changes could have severe The effects on of such a change are also being debated but whatever the Great Lakes causes and effects, the plants, wildlife and people who depend on them. While no one can predict exactly what climate change will mean for DNR’s responsibility is to manage our Great Lakesstate’s natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, scientists agree that the following changes are likely if climate change patterns continue. Increased summer and winter temperatures will cause increased evaporationdrought, lower lake water levels and warmer watertornadoes, resulting in reduced habitat for cold water species and a loss of critical wetland areasice/snow or severe heat. Decreased winter ice cover will also contribute The DNR staff stands ready to increased evaporation and lower lake water levels which could have severe economic consequences for adapt our valuable shipping industrymanagement strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, lakeshore recreationwaterways, plants, wildlife and coastal businessespeople who depend on them. Changes in rain and snowfall patterns (including more frequent and severe storms) could change water flow in streams and rivers and increase stream bank erosion and runoff pollution. The good news is that we can all work to slow climate change and lessen its effects. To find out For more about climate change and how we can all help, please visit the following links. Wisconsin DNR Climate Change information Global Climate Change Climate Change Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit [exit DNR] Climate change is mainly on the result research conducted by the University of rising CO 2 levels in Earth´s atmosphere. Check out the most current CO 2 level and what it means: Wisconsin-Madison CO 2 Now [exit DNR] General climate change information and actions we can all take to help (includes a special section for teachers and students): EPA Climate Change [exit DNR] Climate Change and the Great Lakes International Assn. for Great Lakes Research Climate Change The Nelson Institute [exit DNR] Union of Concerned Scientists [exit DNR] Water Sustainability and Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region [exit DNR] (Sea Grant materials) National Wildlife Federation – Great Lakes Report [PDF exit DNR]
Op-Ed
-
Why Vote for MPS Funding Referendum
Mar 30th, 2024 by Nehemiah Edwards
-
Wisconsin’s Very Own Rudy Giuliani Should Not Oversee Judicial Ethics
Mar 25th, 2024 by Richard Niess
-
Voting at Wisconsin’s Universities Isn’t Easy
Mar 17th, 2024 by Nicole Laudolff
What can we do to get this text reverted? Who can/should be spoken to get this fixed?
“The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.” So, the Trumpian war against science continues in Madison.
Until at least 2018, a brick wall.
Wow, this is really awful. This is what you’d expect in some third world country, but that’s what Wisconsin has become in the Age of Scooter.
This is
vile and disgustinggreat.Dear Scott Walker. You’re an idiot. And dear DNR, I can’t believe you are being bullied into this. Are you not scientists? Grow some!
G̶a̶l̶i̶l̶e̶o̶ Goebbels would be proud.
Hollyce- What do you think getting rid of civil service was about? And also remember that a sizable number of DNR scientists were removed in the last budget.
Why do you think righties want to defund the UW? Because independent research is a threat to their BS Bubble World. They want all research to be overseen by political hacks, and funded by the Kochs and other campaign contributors.
Know this.
Open for business, closed for knowledge. Pretty sad.
We will never move our family to Wisconsin. The state is in a death spiral. No hope for the future. No plans. What a terrible waste.
This is unthinkable.
Frontline’s “Climate of Doubt” from 2012: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/climate-of-doubt/
Snotty Governor has destroyed Wisconsin in favor of his donors… while most were protesting ACT 10 (and rightfully so) in Feb, a month after his took office in 2011, he was in the background reducing EPA standards of pollutants allowed in Fox Valley rivers so his Koch Bros paper businesses wouldn’t be fined or have to make improvements to the plants.
The solution is to vote.
Thanks for noticing and writing about this, Mr. Rowen.
Censorship goes both ways: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/31/1060444/-
The governor of New Mexico did the same thing: all of the state government servers were purged of science when the previous governor (by the way, a member of the Democrat Party) was replaced with the current governor (by the way, a member of the Republican Party). All of my efforts to get the governor to state what steps she will take, and later what steps she has taken, to help New Mexico mitigate against and adapt to human-caused climate change have been met with mysterious replies that have nothing at all to do with the changed and changing climate.
Open for business – everything is for sale.
I’m glad I’m retired. After giving the DNR the best years of my life it’s dispiriting to see it being reduced to a political henchman.
In case anyone hasn’t seen this hilarious exchange in Florida (where Rick Scott censored put a gag order on the phrase “climate change”):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo3K7rbkWZQ
I second Colin W Stuart, who should we call about this? Please include information on how to respond to this sort of thing! The article is great, but can you let us know how to stand up?
WHAT THE PAGE USED TO SAY BEFORE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CHANGED IT:
Climate Change and Wisconsin´s Great Lakes
Earth´s climate is changing. Human activities that increase heat–trapping (“green house”) gases are the main cause. Earth´s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F since 1850 and the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Increasing temperatures have led to changes in rainfall patterns and snow and ice cover. These changes could have severe effects on the Great Lakes and the plants, wildlife and people who depend on them. While no one can predict exactly what climate change will mean for our Great Lakes, scientists agree that the following changes are likely if climate change patterns continue.
Increased summer and winter temperatures will cause increased evaporation, lower lake water levels and warmer water, resulting in reduced habitat for cold water species and a loss of critical wetland areas.
Decreased winter ice cover will also contribute to increased evaporation and lower lake water levels which could have severe economic consequences for our valuable shipping industry, lakeshore recreation, and coastal businesses.
Changes in rain and snowfall patterns (including more frequent and severe storms) could change water flow in streams and rivers and increase stream bank erosion and runoff pollution.
The good news is that we can all work to slow climate change and lessen its effects. To find out more about climate change and how we can all help, please visit the following links.
Wisconsin DNR Climate Change information
Wisconsin DNR´s new Climate Change Activity Guide for grades 7–12 teachers
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/teacher/climatechangeguide.htm
Global Climate Change
http://dnr.wi.gov/climatechange/
Climate Change Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit [exit DNR]
http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/educators/wildlife-wildlands-toolkit
Climate change is mainly the result of rising CO2 levels in Earth´s atmosphere. Check out the most current CO2 level and what it means: CO2 Now [exit DNR]
http://co2now.org/
General climate change information and actions we can all take to help (includes a special section for teachers and students): EPA Climate Change [exit DNR]
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Climate Change and the Great Lakes
International Assn. for Great Lakes Research Climate Change [exit DNR]
http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy/factsheets.php/
Union of Concerned Scientists [exit DNR]
http://go.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glsolutionsmanage.html
Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region [exit DNR] (Sea Grant materials)
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/climatechange/
National Wildlife Federation – Great Lakes Report [PDF exit DNR]
http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/files/hall_climate_change_nwf_report.pdf.pdf
I remember when WI was a progressive state.
Oh Scottie, you’re so stupid. Do you really think, by pretending it’s not happening, that it will stop? The correlation between low intelligence and “conservatives” in the US has been demonstrated scientifically…but of course Scottie and his fellow nazi idiots don’t believe in science. Truly pathetic.
Yeah, progressing down the sewer with Doyle.
Even if it can be established beyond any doubt that the earth will continue to warm (no one really knows the future, even scientists) it is far from clear that the best approach to solving the problem, economically or politically, is to reduce emissions, especially when estimates of current schemes like the Paris Accords offer modest improvements, almost to the point of irrelevance. It may be that adapting to changing conditions over the next century might be more effective. These are questions beyond the scope of mere climatology, and requires hard thinking about how humanity can best spend its limited resources.
In an anti-intellectual state like WI has become, ideologues are in charge of scientists. Scientific consensus is ignored despite overwhelming evidence in favor of those whose business and/religious opinions necessitate climate change denial. It is truly sad how Walker and the now dominant GOP have succeeded in gutting education, weakening labor, attacking diversity and academic pluralism, and driving business only through pay to play schemes. I honestly wish Trump had appointed Walker to something just to get him out of the Gov’s office. It is beyond upsetting that the average Wisconsinite was stupid enough to elect him 3 times! Well you got what you wanted WI – the Kentucky of the North.
“Even if it can be established beyond any doubt that the earth will continue to warm (no one really knows the future, even scientists)”
It IS established beyond any doubt.
“…it is far from clear that the best approach to solving the problem, economically or politically, is to reduce emissions,”
It is more than clear, it is immediately obvious: increased emisssions of greenhouse gases is causing a rapid increase in radiative forcing? hmmmm.. maybe reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
it’s like you’re saying “if the cup is overflowing, it is far from clear the the best approach is to stop pouring more water into it.”
ummm, yeah… i think it’s pretty clear…
“especially when estimates of current schemes like the Paris Accords offer modest improvements, almost to the point of irrelevance.”
so what you’re saying is that we’re not doing enough, therefore we should do less? on what planet does this make any sense on?
“It may be that adapting to changing conditions over the next century might be more effective.”
I don’t think you understand the consequences here. It’s not the kind of thing you just “adapt” to.
“These are questions beyond the scope of mere climatology, and requires hard thinking about how humanity can best spend its limited resources.”
These are moot questions. Merely “adapting to changing conditions” is not an option. There are no shortcuts. The less we do now, the more we will be paying for it later.
If Wisconsin doesn’t fight back against this POS, then damn your whole state: this is what you get for bringing him to power not just once but twice. You must suffer the consequences of your choices.
Not just now, not just until 2018, but for generations to come, this Orwellian reduction of language and subsequent thought will drag your state down. And as it becomes successful, it will happen in more and more places in America.
Until it becomes the truth.
“Even if it can be established beyond any doubt that the earth will continue to warm….”
You mean “If the gods change the laws of physics….” Er, good luck with that.
Meanwhile, there is *ZERO* doubt among all of the world’s geophysicists on the subject: baring nuclear holocaust or a massive meteorite strike, Earth will continue to warm sharply and anomalously due to human-produced CH4 and CH2. The debate on this issue among scientists ended decades ago.
“It IS established beyond any doubt.”
Exactly so; among the world’s scientists there is no more doubt about human-caused climate change than there is the heliocentric model of the Solar System, atomic theory, evolution, conservation of energy…. Even among deniers and disavowers they don’t actually doubt the facts regarding human-caused climate change: they just claim they do.
“These are questions beyond the scope of mere climatology….”
… and therefore have been addressed constantly by economists and sociologists as well as scientists for the past 60+ years. See Working Group Two for what human-caused climate change is already costing us in human life, other life forms, and loss of wealth; see Working Group Three for what best to do about the crisis.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
You’re welcome. You now have no excuses to repeat your falsehoods.
“You now have no excuses to repeat your falsehoods.”
I think you underestimate the staying power of denial.
From my experience, it takes until the very next comment for them to forget everything you just told them.
And they rarely, if ever, follow links.
I like your optimism, though.
And now the DNR is going to allow more wetlands to be destroyed for sand mining for the Fracking industry. Our pristine wetlands and forests are being treated like limitless resources, available to whoever has money and contributes to the Republican party.
A comprehensive look, in 2008, as to the scientific, economic, and political issues of climate change all of which are occurring on a global scale, Frontline’s “Heat”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/heat/
As a conservative (Moderate) scientist in business for 25 years, this is just sick. If te DNR publishes lies can it be relied upon for anything? (I realize the true scientists there are probably cringing but there is a point where you need to leave and all of us need to vote.
I am really concerned that ignorant people in our state government are making important decisions.
“I am really concerned that ignorant people in our state government are making important decisions.”
The problem is they are not ignorant: they are evil homicidal sociopaths.
And here we come to the root of the problem.
“Ignorance is the root of all evil.”
As you get deeper, it becomes harder to distinguish between deliberate evil and deliberate ignorance. At bottom, our brains are designed to survive. Not to be right, but to survive.
There’s a level where you’re like “do they really believe the crap they’re saying?!” Well yes, quite possibly yes. The idea of “belief” centralized this here. A “belief” is essentially an emotional position. They simply are in that state. Whether it is “rational” or not isn’t relevant.
I don’t like the word “evil”. It’s a cop-out. There is always something entirely different and more complex going on. Well, maybe not more complex….
It is never a question of “evil”, it is always a matter of an individual’s ability to take in new information and meticulously think through the consequences.
And that is what I think we are lacking today, in America.
According to a 2015 article in Scientific American, the Walker administration’s war against the words “climate change”, and science in general, has been ongoing for at least six years:
“In November 2010 the DNR’s main climate change Web page was a rich portal containing detailed information about climate trends, forecasted impacts of climate change and DNR programs aimed at addressing the problem. The page also acknowledged that “the most renowned group of scientists working on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that it is very likely [more than 90 percent probability] that human activity is responsible for rising temperatures.” Today, the page contains a single paragraph describing, in general terms, a partnership with the University of Wisconsin to study the impacts of climate change and a link to the university’s project Web site.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scott-walker-dismantled-wisconsin-s-environmental-legacy/
Thanks to James Rowen, a diligent truth seeker in a time when it is badly needed.
It’s astounding and scary that Wisconsin’s heritage as the birthplace of countless environmental milestones–from resource conservation and ecological restoration to Earth Day–can so easily be reversed.
Kudos to James Rowen for sounding the alarm. It will be up to citizens to overturn this travesty (and any help they can muster from the media). Surely Wisconsin’s leading-light scientists–Increase Lapham, John Muir, Aldo Leopold and so many more–can help guide the way during this Dark Era.
This reminds me of the movie “Dumb and Dumber” when Jim Carey is asking this beautiful woman if he has a chance that she will be interested in him. Her reply knowing full well that ‘no way in hell” but she tells Carey ,” I don’t think it is going to happen” Cary replies “So there is a chance!!!” No pun intended with the Dumber and Dumber movie, but it fits the WI DNR policy pretty well. Climate change is real, stop denying it, it makes Wisconsin look like a third world country in scientific thinking.
Why doesn’t the DNR just go to their own Wisconsin State Climatology Office for guidance from actual scientists vs. listening to a few fringe scientist on the Internet and oil industry funded politicians?
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-change.html
“When time periods extending to decades are considered, the presence of long-term trends in deviations from “normal” indicate “climate change”. This change is believed to be non-cyclic, a result of increased greenhouse gases caused by human activity starting in the 20th century.”
Cathy Stepp and Kurt Theide…Walker appointees to the DNR.
“They plan to develop a program to turn over some time-consuming tasks of permit writing to experts in the private sector who are hired by a property owner or business seeking a permit.”
That sounds like the fox is in charge of the henhouse to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
The climate has been changing on Earth for a good 4.5 billion years now. Right where I’m sitting in Wisconsin, 22,000 years ago there used to be an ice sheet 2 miles thick. There must have been some pretty significant climate change since then for that ice sheet 2 miles thick to melt. And that was well before the false statement that our SUVs are warming the planet.
You cant even argue that… Well, you could try, but you’d be an idiot.
“The climate has been changing on Earth for a good 4.5 billion years now.”
Climate change in the past is not the problem, you silly goose: human-caused climate change now and in the future is the problem. Is this fact really not obvious to you? Really?
It’s like there’s an imminent car crash and all you need to do is step on the brake, but instead the driver is like “This car has been driving for thousands of miles.”
You’re right, “John Adams”. Attempting to argue with you would be idiotic. Clearly you don’t understand how CO2 levels have risen since the industrial revolution with coal fired power plants and internal combustion engines. That hasn’t happened over 4.5 billion years. It has happened in a tiny blip of our history…over the last 200 years. The environment can not adapt that quickly, which is why we are at another extinction event.
oh, but let’s look at the history of the climate.
for the first 500 million years there was no life on earth
for 200 Billion years after that the climate was entirely incapable of supporting animal life. there was no oxygen, you see.
ironically, the sudden oxygenation (aka “oxygen holocaust”) led to a mass extinction.
in it’s course there have been 5 great extinction events, each one killing off between 75% and 95% of all species on the planet.
The most recent of which – and also the biggest – was caused by a population explosion of methane-producing microbes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen which led to a run away greenhouse effect that killed off 96% of all marine species.
“/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c”
Yes, that is indeed hilarious! The cult states scientists state the exact opposite of what scientists state. LOL! A fine example of lying for profit.
“It’s like there’s an imminent car crash and all you need to do is step on the brake, but instead the driver is like ‘This car has been driving for thousands of miles.'”
Indeed. Or perhaps “Hey, humans have been killing each other for hundreds of thousands of years! Therefore atomic bombs and a world-wide delivery system are nothing to worry about!”
happy, There are three distinct phases of the “most recent” and “the biggest” extinction. They are, large impact events, massive volcanic events, and the sudden release of methane from the sea floor. All of which the life on the planet, like us, has NO control over.
Desert, Please tell me of what is false in that video. And I have to laugh, who exactly is lying for profit? How many mansions does Al Gore have and yet nothing of that he speaks is true. The guy wont do a single debate on the subject.
” All of which the life on the planet, like us, has NO control over.”
So the oxygen holocaust was not caused by life?
The methane holocaust was not caused by methagens?
And presumably the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was not caused by a rapid emmision of CO2.
PragerU? As in the absolutely insane Dennis Prager who recently said California’s drought is caused by nature-worshiping pagans who stole the water and gave it to fish? Yes a video on his site is totally credible. And climate science is suspect because Al Gore has a big house. Keep it up John (McAdams?). The end-of-year laughs are appreciated.
Oh no, you don’t understand:
Climate change is real and caused by humans: namely, nature-worshippers stealing water from the oceans and giving it to the fish.
Genius.
Skeptics of mans little involvement of the changing climate (that has been changing since the dawn of time) do not need to fudge fact, lie, and hide truth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354
That’s all you climate change deniers do, is try to change facts. Yes, climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. but not on a level like it has since the industrial revolution. Animals can not evolve that quickly. That takes millions and millions of years. Mass extinctions are already happening.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
“There are three distinct phases of the most recent and the biggest extinction. They are, large impact events, massive volcanic events, and the sudden release of methane from the sea floor. All of which the life on the planet, like us, has NO control over.”
… except we are the cause of the current mass extinction event. See the problem now?
By the way, due entirely to humans the background extinction level changed from less than 1 species per year in pre-industrial times to almost four species per year at present; that is an average. Regarding reptiles, humans have caused and are causing more than 50 species per year to go extinct.
So…. why did you believe your lies would be accepted? I would really like to understand.
“Desert, Please tell me of what is false in that video. ”
Pay me for my time and I will. I accept paypal: send $200 and I will once again explain why the video is crammed full of lies.
You can also read what I have written in the propaganda’s comment section.
You can also watch the 40+ videos on my youtube channel that debunked the anti-science propaganda.
I’m sure he’ll say it’s just a coincidence.
That or none of it is real and it’s all part of a massive worldwide conspiracy.
“And presumably the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was not caused by a rapid emmision of CO2.”
Exactly so: the assertion is not just wrong, but insulting. We know with 100% certainty that humans are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2—- radio-isotopic carbon and oxygen ratios prove this beyond doubt. We know with high confidence that almost all of the increased atmospheric CH4 is caused by humans. These issues were tool-boxed by the world’s geophysicists many decades ago.
“PragerU? As in the absolutely insane Dennis Prager who recently said California’s drought is caused by nature-worshiping pagans who stole the water and gave it to fish?”
Yep, that’s the clown! Note that The Tangerine Tyrant also made that assertion, followed by “When I’m president I will turn the water back on.” Reality really is optional for these people.
you can also type a few key words into this little myth debunker engine i put together: https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=010604914765216769522:2b_pytebcxg
“Climate change is real and caused by humans: namely, nature-worshipers stealing water from the oceans and giving it to the fish.”
All hail Ea, bringer of The Great Flood!
“Skeptics of mans little involvement of the changing climate (that has been changing since the dawn of time) do not need to fudge fact, lie, and hide truth.”
No one claimed we skeptics are hiding the truth.
Meanwhile, humans are demonstrably 100% the cause of the current global temperature increase. You have been told this fact for years, with all the evidence us skeptics needed to be convinced. You merely reject observed reality for political and superstitious “reasons.” You might wish to discuss the issue with a mental health care professional.
Regarding us skeptics, we were all convinced by the evidence decades ago. For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase. Among them, Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827; John Tyndall in 1859; Svante Arrhenius in 1896; C.J. Fox in 1909; A. Angstron in 1918; Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916; E.O. Hulburt in 1931; S.G. Callendar in 1937; Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956; Carl Sagan in 1972; Stephen Hawking in 1960; Isaac Asimov in 1968; Wally Broecker in 1975; Richard Feynman and “The Jasons” in 1980; and over 660 science organization in 35 countries with one dissent. Science won; brainwashed “free market” cultists lost. Put some ice on it.
This can all be explained quite simply by a massive and highly coordinated global conspiracy lasting over a century.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) graphs showing accelerated increases in temperature appear to be fabricated. Tony Heller at the RealClimateScience blog points out that NOAA admits that 42 percent of their 2016 monthly station data was missing so they used falsified data instead, and that NOAA needlessly adjusted their data by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit – the same amount the agency claims temperatures have increased by since 1900.
This is not the first time NOAA has been accused of data tampering. Earlier in 2016, agency whistleblowers alleged that the agency had “rushed” a study published to debunk the global warming pause. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) grew frustrated with NOAA dragging their feet on producing documents relevant to the study.
“Data consist of facts, and facts can be cherry-picked to yield a desired effect,” the Washington Times editorial board wrote in March. “In the NOAA study, researchers found that ocean temperatures measured by ships were warmer than those recorded by buoys anchored in place, and scientists ‘developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements.’ Ship’s engines, however, can heat nearby water and produce false readings. By including those values, critics contend, the agency may have effectively erased evidence of the global warming pause.”
The evidence points to record amounts of cold weather. Data from the Rutgers University Climate Lab shows that the autumn snow cover has been increasing for 40 years, with 2016’s snow cover level being the second highest amount (2014 was the highest). Additionally, former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has noted that the first week of the new year will be met with 48 states being below freezing levels, which he says will be record amounts of cold. It’s hard to see how both of these would occur if global warming is rising at an accelerated rate.
The polar bear population seems to be thriving. One of the ways that the global warming alarmists have been promoting their agenda has been through fearmongering about polar bears supposedly being driven to extinction from all the melting ice. But reality tells a different story. Canadian scientists published a study in Ecology and Evolution finding “no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis.” This is right in line with evidence showing that polar bears have thrived even when there wasn’t any ice in the Arctic and that the polar bear population overall has been on the upswing.
There were 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers in 2016 that concluded there was not wide-scale global warming. In fact, the papers showed that there was more of a cooling trend than a warming trend, and in places where there was warming, it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary. The scientific literature has been compiled here.
The weather trends don’t indicate that anything severe is occurring.
No upswing in hurricanes.
Slow increase of ocean heat content since 1970.
Global surface temperatures being relatively flat for 13 years.
Lower troposphere temperatures based on satellite data.
The evidence simply does not support the global warming alarmist’s contention that rising temperatures are going to lead to disaster for the planet.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632
After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.
Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.
Weather and climate are not the same thing.
http://climate.nasa.gov
The new statement is far superior to the old — well-crafted and scientifically correct. It is a break from the heretofore obligatory echoing of the IPCC consensus talking points which are over-confident, not accurate as usually stated, and are the very topics that are under vigorous debate.
I am proud of Wisconsin, the home of my fore-bearers, for taking the lead in getting our from under the thumb of “political correctness” in regards to climate.
There is no debate in the scientific community, nonetheless a vigorous one.
They might as well say “we’re not sure there’s such a thing as gravity” on their website.
Political correctness? Right-wingers are seriously claiming it’s PC to acknowledge man-made climate change? That’s just stupefying. What’s next Kip? Claiming it’s PC to warn against driving while intoxicated?
“I am proud of Wisconsin, the home of my fore-bearers, for taking the lead in getting our from under the thumb of political correctness in regards to climate.”
Yeah, that’s right: the laws of physics are politically correct thumbs that oppressed and persecute fascists for political reasons. Stop it, laws of physics! Stop being correct for political reasons, damn you! Stop dictating how the entire universe works, laws of physics! Obey the “free market” cultists, damn you physical laws! Stop interfering by making liberals and progressives agreeing you exist!
“There is no debate in the scientific community, nonetheless a vigorous one.”
Indeed. We debated the issue already, for decades; we have moved on to issues regarding how to deal with the crisis.
“Political correctness? Right-wingers are seriously claiming it’s PC to acknowledge man-made climate change? That’s just stupefying. What’s next Kip? Claiming it’s PC to warn against driving while intoxicated?:
Yeah, apparently so. Dipole moment on atmospheric molecules are just politically correct agendas. Damn those HHCHH and HOH molecules! Why, how *DARE* they?!
GOP politicians can afford to be climate-change deniers but insurance companies and many other businesses cannot. Here’s just one article about insurers taking climate change very seriously. Cities on both coasts are also rigorously planning ahead.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/consumer/fl-florida-climate-change-economic-toll-20150730-story.html
Gov. Walker and others continue to play pretend and will leave it to more responsible people to get Wisconsin’s head out of the sand. Their only concern now is to spout drivel and keep big donors appeased, especially fossil-fuel interests and big developers.
Oh gawd, this has been slashdotted: https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/12/30/0056226/wisconsins-department-of-natural-resources-site-no-longer-says-humans-cause-climate-change
Just what we needed, for Wisconsin to be a national embarrassment, AGAIN.
um….. the great lakes were once the great glaciers prior to people driving cars around. I love that the Cult of Environmentalism is now declaring heretics in the same religious zeal as the people they denounce. Complex statistics are not the same as science. When you have to constant fit data to make and remake your data and it can’t be used in a predictive way, you have a problem, not a science.
But please, lecture me on how an endeavor which is based on a 95% confidence interval and has had to be revised because it was wrong so many times is 100% correct.
Brother, there are so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to begin…
Isn’t that the new MO for climate change deniers? Cast doubt on it be referencing how complex it is and how no one really fully understands it? They flatter themselves by insinuating that only people like them are willing to admit the science is flawed and inconclusive.
“Brother, there are so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to begin…”
Heh. Do not bother: it was all debunked many tens of thousands of times by the very scientists the hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmist pretended to cite. One should always read the primary sources, and never read what the “free market” cultists claim the scientists said.
A 95% confidence interval?!? How DARE they declare their error margins!
Using statistics? In SCIENCE? What gives?
The whole comment is absurdity after absurdity.
It seems to me the MO for climate change deniers is just to overwhelm with nonsensical drivel showing a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.
And I’m totally serious — I just had a long conversation with a denier only to discover who didn’t even know what the principle of conservation of energy was. He seemed to think i was trying to play some sort of trick on him.
That’s true happyjack. It just seems that since the science is so settled they no longer deny the existence of global warming. They’ve shifted tactics. Instead they hem and haw about how it’s complex and evolving so how can we be so sure while also claiming that people who believe in the science are the real zealots.
“Isn’t that the new MO for climate change deniers? Cast doubt on it be referencing how complex it is and how no one really fully understands it?”
That certainly has been one of the most popular assertions by anti-science anti-reality pro-greed politicians. They insist that “No one really knows,” and The Tangerine Fascist even repeated the falsehood a few days ago. What the neo-fascists somehow fail to understand is that if their assertion was true, that would mean the crisis is even more dire— humanity would need to expend much more effort and resources mitigating against the problem due to basic risk assessment unknowns. We are lucky to understand exactly, with no ambiguity, what has caused and is causing the crisis and how bad it has been and will become. The more we know about the crisis the better we can solve it and at a lower cost.
This “achievement” is another feather is Scott Walker’s dunce cap–one more step in making Wisconsin the Mississippi of the North.
I was told by a ranger a few years ago that rangers & naturalists who give talks in the parks were required to have scripts vetted by the Dept. of Administration. That’s “small government” in action, when the government’s primary policy is enforcing ignorance.
The first question is whether it should be government or commerce. On issues that effect the general welfare where there are insufficient incentives for businesses, such as climate change, the answer is clearly government.
At this point the question of “large” or “small” does not yet enter in. The question is one of proximity to the data. On matters of science proximity is clearly maximized by deferring to scientists.
At this point we consider large or small. And our answer is as much data as possible. In this case we should have “large government”, and particularly the IPCC.
It is doubly ironic then, that “small government proponents” (who have an ironic tendency to increase government spending), seek to give MORE power to those with LESS knowledge, but at the expense of taking it away from the individual decentralized efforts of responsible citizens.
“Individual responsibility?” That is, unless it conflicts with my ignorance!
Mississippi does NOT like to be called the “Wisconsin” of the South !!
Mississippi is a lot more forward thinking than the state that Scott Walker and his ilk have turned Wisconsin into.
Enough with the constant bashing of Mississippi by comparing it to Walker’s Wisconsin.. In terms of economic growth and general growth of the middle class, Mississippi has been kicking the a$$ of Walker’s Wisconsin. Sad but true for all you “Stand With Walker” folks.
@Tom,
I see your point and will seek a better analogy. I know that Mississippi and other southern states are working to implement all sorts of positive change–and reckoning with less-appealing parts of their history.
Some Wisconsin elected officials are instead trying to wipe out the state’s proudest achievements and heritage. The only other state that comes to mind in terms of such regression is Kansas, which keeps sinking lower in all its stats as it implements reactionary-conservative polices.
For better analogies I’d only say you needn’t limit yourself to this country. Perhaps consider other countries, however, you’d still be hard-pressed to find a good analogy; at least among first-world countries.
Tom, funny you should say that about Mississippi and Wisconsin. According to Business Insider, in 2015 Mississippi came in dead last in economic rankings. Wisconsin came in 18th. Try again…
Tom, funny you should say that about Mississippi and Wisconsin. According to Business Insider, in 2015 Mississippi came in dead last in economic rankings. Wisconsin came in 18th. Try again…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/state-economy-rankings-q1-2015-2015-3
“As one of Greenland’s largest ice shelves shrinks, a once-doubtful scientist has come around to the role of climate change in melting it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2016/12/30/with-enough-evidence-even-skepticism-will-thaw/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Vincent, exactly what I said in my first post. 22,000 years ago where I am now, there was an ice sheet 2 miles thick. Tha5 would have to be one hell of a cl I met change to make it the fertile ground it is now. We’ll before our evil evil SUVs.
Did you know there were turtle and alligator remains on the top islands on Canada? Climate change. It’s been happening for billions of years.
Yes climate change been happening since colliding asteroids made this planet. In its course it has killers off almost all life on this planet at least 5 times over. At least 2 of which were caused by life (the oxygen holocaust and the methane holocaust.) you’re making my point for me.
@ John Adams:
Actually, no state likes to be lumped in with Wisconsin. Not just a Mississippi problem, but 48 other states also don’t want to be mentioned in the same sentence as Walker’s Wisconsin.
Why?? Walker’s Wisconsin is a cesspool of corruption, from the Koch bought and paid for Supreme Court to the ReTHUGlican State Senate & Assembly right into the Governor’s mansion. Walker’s Wisconsin is open for corruption, not business. Worst state in the Midwest for economic growth. Net outflow of 18,000 college graduates per year that are fleeing this state. Stories like this reinforce the decision of young people to flee this sorry excuse for a state. No wonder many manufacturers report that they cannot find young workers, the next generation of talent is leaving Wisconsin at an unprecedented rate.
The only state that is OK with being compared to Walker’s Wisconsin is Kansas.
Failures of a feather enjoy being mentioned together.
Regarding what all of the world’s geophysicists have concluded on the issue over the past 100+ years, one can read this study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Commercial fishing, once a Great Lakes way of life, slips away: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/30/business/la-fi-great-lakes-fishing-20110830
“I can’t think of any time in the last couple hundred years where there has been a society in which a large group of people are somewhat impervious to empirical reality.” — Aaron McCright, sociologist at Michigan State University
“When enough respected conservative leaders stand behind science, the needle will move. If they fail to do so, a lot of people will have to move [away] from the coasts.”
I’m writing from the Seattle area, and find this kind of incredible. Is this what Trump is going to bring to the rest of us, the places that didn’t vote for him? As a high school student, I read about Wisconsin’s history of progressive politics, with leaders like LaFolette, but it appears that the demise of your manufacturing industry has thrown your state into the kind of “Great Appalachian” politics that has beset Ohio. Most of our state leaders and Congress people out here are Democratic and relatively progressive, and we’re left wondering what we can do about the rest of the country when formerly sane places like yours go crazy.
Rod Stevens,
Yes, this IS what we have to look forward to on a national level as well. Just wait until Ted Cruz gets his hands on NASA and suppresses any science related to climate change.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Kind of like there are really only two genders. Three if you count neuter.
It’s also nice to know when it comes to climate, dispite what DiCapricock, Al Gore and all the other idiot progressives who are in it to make a buck, or for control, the sciencetc is NOT settled.
@Tom
You’ll find that manufacturing jobs are hardly kept by young people is because they have a hard time passing drug tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html?_r=0
Also, even the leftist Green Bay Gazzette finds the manufacturing outlook in Wisconsin looking good.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/money/companies/state-of-opportunity/2015/12/07/solid-growth-forecast-wisconsin-2016/76563662/
Changing text on a website is worrisome but GOP legislators are planning for the complete dismantling of the DNR. Their new plan will limit the well-regarded citizens advisory Natural Resources Board to only advising on wildlife, not other conservation/environmental issues.
There’s still time for citizens to try to stop this.
Essentially, the plan would have one department that caters to hunters and fishers (who are part of Wisconsin’s GOP base) while starving another “environmental” department and cutting links between them. State parks would be spun off from both and function purely as “businesses” within the tourism department. It’s whispered that state parks that don’t generate enough income will first be shuttered and then eventually sold off. Things are not looking good for the state that set aside America’s first state park. State Forests would be under the Agriculture department and environmental lawyers will report to Administrative Services. This is the real Divide & Conquer (and they released it days before the Christmas holiday).
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/dnr-breakup-plan-called-a-boon-to-polluters/article_eb7cc88a-f7ca-5cf4-9760-f051a30b34e6.html
http://host.madison.com/wsj/opinion/mailbag/governor-wants-to-finish-off-the-dnr—/article_a81ed5d1-16ac-58cf-b1d5-bed883858e95.html
http://host.madison.com/wsj/opinion/mailbag/breaking-up-the-dnr-is-a-bad-idea–/article_781af7df-2749-5e11-83f1-151dca465ed7.html
Just as UW is already having trouble recruiting top research & teaching talent, natural resources experts will think twice about taking jobs in Wisconsin–and there are already several hundred vacancies.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Kind of like there are really only two genders. Three if you count neuter.
It’s also nice to know when it comes to climate, dispite what DiCapricock, Al Gore and all the other idiot progressives who are in it to make a buck, or for control, the science is NOT settled.
@Rod and Tom One of the main reasons its hard to find young people entering manufacturing is because its hard to hold young employee past their drug tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html?_r=1
And Rod. Even the leftist Green Bay Gazzette sees a pretty positive outlook for Wisconsin manufacturing. Try again Rod.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/money/companies/state-of-opportunity/2015/12/07/solid-growth-forecast-wisconsin-2016/76563662/
And then there is this idiot… making even more a mockery of “climate change”. Love.it.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/jill-stein-istanbul-terrorism-has-nothing-do-islam-everything-do-climate-change#.WGuroRiRMtY.twitter
There has got to be a way to link the sky is falling, to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
What we should do is, through tax payer money, fund a group of “scientists” who already prescribe to the idea of the climate change bombing (no matter what the truth is). The more they rattle their clip boards and point to fake hockey sticks, the more other peoples money we should throw at it.
Ignore john, he just gets off on insulting people.
John McAdams calls other people idiots but uses Jill Stein as proof of climate science being suspect. And the leftist Green Bay Press Gazette? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all year. You are a funny man John McAdams.
@John Adams. Why not just push to fire ALL government scientists of any type. Save some tax dollars!!
People can all just wing it and believe whatever they want in a BRAVE NEW (POST-FACTS) WORLD!
Hey Happy, better go find your safe space!
M, we are already in a post-fact world. I mean look at MSNBC,CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS. Barry O talks about the “fake news”, we’ll fella, those supposed news sources deal in fake news all day long. You believe what ever they want you to believe.
Good stuff. A laugh a minute with thread. Keep em coming!
“You believe what ever they want you to believe.”
Oh irony, I do love thee.
It seems many conservatives have trouble properly grasping the concept of “fake news”, and apparently John is no exception.
“Fake news” means news whose information is demonstrably FALSE. Made-up. B.S.
It does not mean TRUE news about reality that disagrees with your opinion.
Hopefully this clarifies things.
You mean like:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/10/msnbc-host-forced-apologize-reporting-false-story-fox-news-christmas-party-422199
OR
http://nationalreport.net/msnbc-anchor-resigns-admits-spreading-lies-behalf-obama/
OR
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caught-dishonestly-editing-town-hall-gun-footage/
OR
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/the-news-vs-i-the-newsroom-i-yes-nbc-did-alter-george-zimmermans-911-call/278566/
And oh I could go on and on with messnbc
“…. and we’re left wondering what we can do about the rest of the country when formerly sane places like yours go crazy.”
There is nothing anyone can do to prevent The America Treason Party from destroying the United States. They have all of the power and have had it for almost 80 years.
” Just wait until Ted Cruz gets his hands on NASA and suppresses any science related to climate change.”
Recall what the Biush2 Regime tried to do to NASA: the death cult ordered NASA to remove all mention of the Big Bang from the NASA web sites. NASA told the Bush2 Regime to go punch sand,and NASA refused to bey.
“Changing text on a website is worrisome but GOP legislators are planning for the complete dismantling of the DNR.”
The America Treason Party has already said they plan on shutting down the Congressional Oversight Committee so that they can commit their crimes against us in secret. This is like bank robbers stating they will shut down the police department “to save money.”:
“There has got to be a way to link the sky is falling, to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.”
The stupid shits problem insist Prearl Harbor was never bombed, or that it was an inside job. Deniers reject demonstrable reality such as human-caused climate change.
Yeah, just wait till sense is made of it all.
Ohh and… Science! http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
” And the leftist Green Bay Press Gazette? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all year. You are a funny man John McAdams.”
Many hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists like McAdams here have insisted that the Republican Party’s cable network is “leftist.” There is no reasoning with people who replaced their brains with Nazi propaganda.
Desertphile,
John Adams posted earlier that you’d be an idiot to argue with him, and he’s right. Only because trying to have a serious conversation about science with a crazy person IS idiotic.
John Adams wants to sit down in the hull of the sinking ship, knees deep in water, arguing over which rat it was that chewed through the planks, causing the leak. Climate change probably is caused by a number of factors. Some natural, like methane gas. But clearly man has been the cause of a majority of it, and we CAN do things to reduce our contribution to that. Grab a bucket or get out of the way. You’re only weighing down the ship, Adams.
Pile, Nazi propaganda? LOL you OBVIOUSLY don’t know your own party’s history.
Pile, this is good stuff. Keep it coming!
Hey Pile, you should look at your last three posts and reflect on who the real “hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists” is.
Hilarious, thanks for the laughs.
McAdams is right. It’s very cold out today. Global warming obviously isn’t real or it wouldn’t be so cold in January in Wisconsin. Your well-reasoned posts and credible sources have convinced me John.
Here I thought Megyn Kelly was going to take over the spot from that guy, Rachel Maddow. Good for Megyn! Maybe NBC is looking to move toward truthful reporting for their 6 viewers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4093640/Megyn-Kelly-groomed-eventually-Savannah-Guthrie-s-job-Today-show.html
Enjoy your Friday everyone!
Wrong article?
That guy? What a vile alt-right homophobe you are McAdams. Not that we didn’t know that about you already.
Wrong again…. I happen to love the gay community. They have every right to be. I’m also African American so you better check your privilege before you make assumptions.
I just so happens I see the world through the glasses of reality, not fantasy. Unfortunately, being black and conservative is a unicorn in its self to liberals. Suposedly, they don’t exist. It’s the left who run the tables on racism. We in the black community, are opening our eyes to the lies and deceit of the lefts racial politics.
Again, enjoy your Friday!
Your post about Rachel Maddow is vile and homophobic. Your reality is warped if you think otherwise. You and WCD should get together. All he does here is call white liberals racists. You can unite black and white in narrow-minded hatred.
White liberals believe just because you are a minority, you can’t make it in America without help from the government (their government). How odd they don’t see that as racist, but anyway. That we need assistance. That white people owe us something.That’s simply not true. The only reason liberal poloticians say this is the ensure the minority vote. Like Joe Biden said “keep us in chains”, but it’s his own party holding the chains. We have every opportunity to make good choices in life. Just like everyone else.
Voter ID laws for instance. The only reason liberals are against voter ID laws is because when they are in place, the left have a harder time with voter fraud. They claim the laws are racist, but in reality….
https://youtu.be/rrBxZGWCdgs
That simply isn’t true. You say you see reality but you push the same fantasy many right-wingers do about liberals wanting people dependent on government and unable to rise up. That is conservative rhetoric and total nonsense. Your reality needs major adjustments John.
Voter fraud that doesn’t exist? And you claim to see reality and not fantasy? Right……………..
STAY ON TOPIC!!
STOP HIJACKING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THE DNR.
^ seconded.
You are right. My apologies.
It does not sound like regulations would be softened at all.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau analyzed Jarchow’s plans at the lawmaker’s request. Among the changes Jarchow is pursuing:
Create a Department of Fish and Wildlife that would handle all the duties of wildlife and fisheries units, including fish and game enforcement. The department also would manage state natural areas. The state Natural Resources Board would be renamed and have policy oversight over the agency.
Create a Department of Environmental Protection that would handle environmental issues like air regulation, ground and watershed management, drinking water, lake and river protections, and dam safety. The department would not have a citizens’ board.
Parks, state trails and southern state forests such as Southern Kettle Moraine would be transferred to the Department of Tourism.
The DNR’s forestry operations and northern forests would be transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, which buys land for public use, would go to the Department of Administration.
“What I told the governor is that I am open to all of these things,” Jarchow said.
The western Wisconsin lawmaker said most states split environmental and natural resources functions.
“I think it would bring significant efficiencies so that they would be able to focus on their core mission.”
Jarchow denied that the changes would lead to weaker environmental enforcement. He said no environmental enforcement standards would be changed under his proposal.
Again, can we stay on topic please…
“We all at some point have common interests in terms of the protection of the environment,” said George Meyer, a former DNR secretary who now directs the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. “Those who are not friends of conserving the environment want to split the department.”
The DNR fisheries program that stocks streams works best in close cooperation with the DNR offices that do research on aquatic life, protect shorelines, manage parks and recreation areas and regulate water pollution, Meyer said.
But the DNR breakup proposal would place fisheries in a new Department of Fish and Wildlife while water pollution regulation would be housed in a Department of Environmental Protection, and parks would go to the Department of Tourism, according to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo.
Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection would get the DNR forestry division, which is aimed at sustainable logging practices that protect wildlife habitat, including aquatic life that is susceptible to erosion and runoff.
And the Department of Administration would be responsible for the stewardship land acquisition program that supports hunting, fishing and water quality protection.
The fiscal bureau memo said there would be no immediate cost increases, but Meyer predicted the new departments would double the number of top executives pulling in $100,000 a year or more. Within a year or two there would also be higher pay for top managers in the tourism department and DATCP where managers would have hundreds of additional employees to supervise, Meyer said.
A long 2014 Milwaukee Mag profile of Cathy Stepp doesn’t mention climate change at all. She said her job isn’t to manage state resources but to manage the people who manage state resources. So who ordered the changes? WMC?
Esquire’s political columnist Charlie Pierce linked the above article.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51865/scott-walker-wisconsin-voting-climate-change/
WPR reported last summer about how environmental protections are being gutted. Rep. Adam Jarchow, who proposes dismantling the entire agency and spinning of its functions, says it’s a “badge of honor” to be on the League of Conservation Voters “Dis-honor Roll.”
http://www.wpr.org/conservation-group-last-legislative-session-saw-worst-attacks-environment-record
“The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard ranking environment-related legislation and the lawmakers who supported it, which claims attacks on clean air, land and water increased in the last year.
Officials with the environmental advocacy group said the 2015-2016 legislative session saw more rollbacks of environmental protections than any other since 2001. League of Conservation Voters legislative director Jennifer Giegerich said some of the worst bills restricted local regulation of things like industrial sand mining and lakeshore zoning.
“This session we definitely saw an unprecedented number of attacks on our air, water and land in Wisconsin and we had more anti-conservation bills introduced and fewer pro-conservation bills introduced,” said Giegerich.
The League of Conservation Voters also named the lawmakers on their environmental “honor” and “dishonor” rolls. Included on the dishonor list were Republican state Sens. Tom Tiffany and Frank Lasee and state Rep. Adam Jarchow.
In a statement Jarchow said he was unfazed by the distinction.
“I see it as a badge of honor. I am proud to work hard to protect property rights on behalf of my constituents. Our pro-growth, common-sense reforms are working. If extremist, left-wing, radical, environmental groups don’t like it, too bad,” said Jarchow.
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Rob Cowles of Green Bay was praised by the group for pushing a bill aimed at keeping plastic microbeads out of the Great Lakes and earned a place on the groups A+ honor roll. He is joined by Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens, Democratic Sen. Mark Miller and Reps. Cory Mason and Chris Taylor.”
Perfectly good reason why to scrub “climate change” text. Public policy should not be determined or influenced by “science” that is not settled. To say the science is settled on “global warming” is 100% denying science. Especially if you have to manipulate the data to push policy.
But, here we go again. Another example or global warming, sky is falling activist “scientists” fudging data to meet their needs to shape policy.
Green is the new red, comrades…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
The science is settled, John.
Is it also not settled science that the world is more than 5,000 years old? And by that measure I don’t think we can say with 100% certainty that the Earth isn’t flat. John gets his answers in Genesis. Humans and dinosaurs walked side-by-side.
It’s not settled science for the model of the atom and electron hole mobility, light polarization, or liquid crystals aligned by electromagnetic fields .
There could be other explanations for how this text is appearing before you.
LOL Its more like it’s manipulated, than settled, happyj.
Way to sound ridiculous, Vince. Go right to trying to think I give a $#!+ about that.
Good stuff!
Answer me this. If the science is settled, why does it need to constantly be manipulated to fit an agenda?
And if it needs to be manipulated, as it appears that it does, why should it be part of public policy?
It’s a Massive Global Liberal Conspiracy, John.
Giant armies of liberals are artificially causing the sea level rise by submerging mountains. And they are using giant hidden heaters to make it LOOK like the global average temperature has been rapidly increasing since the industrial revolution.
Also, all of those satellite images are FAKED.
And don’t get me started on the “moon landing”.
It doesn’t.
Some temperatures are taken during the day, some at night.
Some weather stations have moved.
Information like this needs to be taken into account to improve accuracy.
Learn more here:
https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html
You are being duped by your sources.
Evaluate information more. Do research. Think critically.
“Perfectly good reason why to scrub climate change text.”
So write a paper and submit it to a science journal for peer review and publication; explain the the world’s geophysicists why they are all wrong. What the hell are you waiting for?
Just saw this in Ars Technica :
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
“On Sunday, the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday alleged a seemingly juicy (if unoriginal) climate science scandal. At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.”
Hey wait – DailyMail – that’s the link you posted, isn’t it?
“The science is settled, John.”
Yep— for longer than most people alive have been alive.
For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase:
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956
Carl Sagan in 1972
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and “The Jasons” in 1980
So everyone has some context, this is the “manipulation” that John is talking about:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/noaa_temp_update1.png
“‘On Sunday, the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday alleged a seemingly juicy (if unoriginal) climate science scandal. At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.'”
Yes, that was and is hilarious. The hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists’ claims in DAILY MAIL were and are so bizarre, false, and asinine that they are “not even wrong” as they have zero basis in reality— scientists could not find enough in Rose’s assertions to refute because they are self-refuting. Some of the facts are available here:
https://climatecrocks.com/2017/02/05/much-ado-about-a-noaa-thing/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
http://mashable.com/2017/02/05/noaa-global-warming-hiatus-story/#yLObXxu4CsqL
Desertphile, would it be fair to include Herschel’s discovery of what he called “calorific rays” (that light transmits heat) in 1800? http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_bio.html
I would certainly include Arthur Compton’s discovery of Compton Scattering in 1923…
Or Neils Bohr’s model of the atom, discovered in 1913, which dramatically improved our understanding of light-matter interaction?
…so many to name.,..
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2
Last paragraph:
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.
If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.
At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.
All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.
Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.
To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.
I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.
In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”
From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.
Wow, cherry pick much? Yes, out of the probably something like 1 million sentences in that report, by strange coincidence they failed to pick the only sentence you could find to supports your pre-concieved, uninformed, and anti-scientific emotion-driven opinion- which, in fact, understood correctly, doesn’t even support your point of view.
Firstly, it is false. Far from being on the summary, it shouldn’t have even been anywhere in the more detailed report. You cherry-picking was so desperate that the “cherry” you found was an editing mistake!
Practically everything in the known universe is a coupled non-linear chaotic system. Things that aren’t exist only as classical approximations to make the math easier. And no, the do NOT preclude prediction. A frickin’ forced and damped pendulum is a “coupled non-linear chaotic system”. Is it long term predictable? Hell to the yes!
Not only are chaotic systems, when fully isolated, still long term predictable, but those systems don’t exist in isolation but as part of a larger system with both long-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback. It’s like you’re saying “you can’t predict if lighting the curtains on fire is going to increase the risk of a major fire, because the dancing of flames is unpredictable”.
Clearly you don’t even know what the phrase “chaotic system” means and here you’re hanging on the phrase as if it refutes all of known empirical evidence – millions of satellite photographs. The actual temperature record. Basic chemistry.
Here are two other reasons why it was left out of the summary:
Because the summary SUMMARIZES. It doesn’t cherry pick tiny sentences — which are false — and then greatly distort them to fit an naive point of view. It condenses the work IN PROPORTION. The editing mistake you found is just not an important sentence in the grand scheme of things.
Here’s another reason: so that laymen like you who don’t know what the terms mean or understand how to reason about them won’t totally misunderstand them and miss the forest from the trees.
Clearly, that was a good choice.
But perhaps in the future scientists should be more careful to not confuse agenda-driven science-deniers who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about but like to pretend they do — like, oh, i don’t know, you.
Here is a a classic introductory text to nonlinear dynamics: https://books.google.com/books/about/Nonlinear_Dynamics_and_Chaos.html?id=FIYHiBLWCJMC
Read it, do the problems, get even half of them right. Then we’ll talk.
“… then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.”
Except for the fact that everything the world’s geophysicists said we would see happen due to human-caused climate change is now observed happening. Sheeeish. Do you get out of your mother’s basement much, if any?
We knew this was the case for a while now.
A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/09/bombshell-climate-change-study-could-totally-dismantle-the-claim-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
seems legit.
The Blaze?! Come on John. It isn’t April Fool’s Day. The Blaze is as credible as Jim Bob’s Blog on Why Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together 5,000 Years Ago. Next you’ll link to the Creationist Museum. I could list a thousand studies from scientists on this that all come to the same conclusion and you’d ignore it and instead cite Glenn “FEMA Camps” Beck’s site. That is just sad.
Mr. Adams, if you want to see the temperature record WITHOUT the adjustments, you can scroll down to the first graph here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
It’s the red line.
Vincent, I understand the false religion of man made climate change would not want you to read the peer reviewed study. Maybe try reading the study its self. No worries, I won’t tell Al Gore that you did…
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Sure just as soon as you read every peer reviewed study that comes to the opposite conclusion. How many years do you have? I won’t tell Glenn Beck or Ken Ham that you did.
Find and name the actual writers who made the change. That’s the way “mistakes were made” anonymity. In the long run, science catches up to people, the people who made these changes know it, and the last thing they want is to be named and be made memorable.
“A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets ….”
Okay, so why did you refuse to provide a citation for this astounding discovery of yours? Why is it only you know this amazing fact of yours?
“The Blaze?! Come on John. It isn’t April Fool’s Day.”
The cultist even claimed the anti-science propaganda was “peer reviewed.” LOL!
“Mr. Adams, if you want to see the temperature record WITHOUT the adjustments, you can scroll down to the first graph here….”
One may also download the raw data themselves and do one’s own graphs to compare to the data that have invalid records. Funny how the hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists always refuse to do that.
http://realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
“ould not want you to read the peer reviewed study…..”
Gosh, I would *LOVE* to read a peer reviewed study that shows human-caused climate change is not happen. As soon as you see such a study, please let me know. Thank you in advance.
“Find and name the actual writers who made the change. “:
Everyone did that already. The projects to remove invalid records from all datasets were published many years before the corrections were made. GISS published the project and asked for all interested people to work on the project for SIXTEEN YEARS before finally applying the corrections—- and *EVERYONE* who wanted to, including you, were invited to work on the project. Anyone and everyone could look at the web site and study the proposed corrections and add comments: did you do that? If not, why did you wait until after the corrections were made to complain about the corrections?
RSS did the same thing— for 12 years scientists were asked to help fix the bad data, and you were also allowed to help fix it. You had TWELVE YEARS to study the proposed fixes to the satellite data: did you do so? If not, you have no legitimate complaint.
Phile, the same for you as Vincent. So because the article is from The Blaze, that makes the study false? Thats pretty typical of the lemming liberal.
Here is the study. No worries, I won’t tell your arch-bishop Al Gore that you read it.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Ohh, and about The Blaze. Where on this chart is The Blaze located as far as trusted sites?
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3
Why the need to manipulate the data? Why is that?
Mr. Adams, the data is adjusted to compensate for multiple effects which cause the data to be less accurate. Among them are:
* differences in the time of day the data was taken (since obviously it’s hotter during the day than at night)
* recording stations and instruments are sometimes relocated.
* cities may have sprung up around the area, resulting in more recent measurements being biased by the “urban heat island” effect, while older ones
The reasons for the adjustments are explained in more detail in the link I provided in my above comment.
And no-one is saying the alleged “study” is DEFINITELY false because it came from The Blaze – that would be a genetic fallacy. Just that given the historical record of The Blaze’s reporting, it is PROBABLY false.
To fully refute a claim one always has to address it on it’s merits. The link I provided in my above comment does precisely that. The simply fact that the un-adjusted temperature record shows a STRONGER warming trend is enough to refute the Blaze article completely.
“Phile, the same for you as Vincent. So because the article is from The Blaze….”
It does not matter what anti-science cult web site you saw the “article” on. The subject is a “peer reviewed science paper.” You promised us a science paper that was peer reviewed. I went to the Republican Party’s web page that you mentioned and I did not see any peer reviewed science paper cited; instead they cited this:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
No where is there any evidence the “paper” has been published in any science journal; no where is there evidence that it was peer reviewed.
Try again?
“Why the need to manipulate the data? Why is that?”
Data that are not manipulated are worthless. Data are supposed to be manipulated; that is what data are for. How the bloody anal fuck is this fact not obvious? If data are not manipulated there is no point in collecting them.
“Mr. Adams, the data is adjusted to compensate for multiple effects which cause the data to be less accurate.”
Exactly so. And the methodologies were and still are 100% transparent, fully discussed and tested in the science literature and scientists’ web sites for over a decade before being applied. Anyone and everyone who wanted to was asked, and allowed, to offer comments, advice, and opinions regarding how to correct the invalid data. That goes for RSS, GISS, JAP, MET, PioMASS, GRACE, Jason1-2, and all other databases.
None of the projects correcting the data were done in secret. The hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists who complain about the corrections had *DECADES* in some instances to offer their criticisms before the data were corrected; in almost all cases they had a decade to offer their input—- instead they object *AFTER* the data were corrected.
Phile, no where does it say that its been peer reviewed? I’m sorry if reading is a challenge for you. I already told you I won’t tell your arch-bishop Al Gore that you read a piece apposing his fraud religion of man made climate change.
Nice choice of words by the way. Doesn’t surprise me.
If the evidence of man made climate change is so clear, there should be no reason for manipulating the data to show it so. The climate changes. Its been doing it for about four and a half billion years now.
Phile, I didn’t find any sign of peer review, either. The “paper” doesn’t even say what journal it was published in.
Mr. Adams, what reputable, peer-reviewed journal was it published in?
Also Mr. Adams, in that half a billion years, sudden changes in climate have wiped out nearly all species on the planet FIVE TIMES. And nowhere in that entire half a billion years have greenhouse gases such as carbon and methane accumulated so rapidly in the atmosphere.
Also Mr. Adams, both me and Phile have already answered your question about why the adjust the raw measurements. Repeating the question that we already answered won’t change that fact. If you’re not going to even listen to what other people tell you when you ask them for information, then don’t even bother to ask! It is rude to waste people’s time.
I like how Adams just keeps ignoring that someone already linked him to the unadjusted data. Some horses won’t even be dragged to water.
“Phile, no where does it say that its been peer reviewed?”
Yes, that is correct. If you have any evidence for the “paper” being peer reviewed, perhaps you will be kind enough to produce that evidence here, now. Journal name, publication date, page number for first page, and page number for reviewer notes will be fine. Thank you in advance.
“Mr. Adams, what reputable, peer-reviewed journal was it published in?”
It doesn’t even look like a science paper; note how oddly the propaganda is constructed, with testimonials from random people in the front. I almost died laughing at that.
“I like how Adams just keeps ignoring that someone already linked him to the unadjusted data. Some horses won’t even be dragged to water.”
There are over one point two billion data points available for download at the BEST site freely available to anyone and everyone who wants them, and people can make their own graphs with those data. BEST compared the raw data with the corrected data and showed the corrected data warming trend is less than the raw data’s warming trend. That is, the corrected data are “cooler” than the raw data—- a fact the hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists do not bother mentioning.
“If the evidence of man made climate change is so clear, there should be no reason for manipulating the data to show it so.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Data must be manipulated; that is what data are for. Data that are not manipulated are almost always useless; if data are not manipulated, why even collect them?
OMG, i just skimmed through the “paper”, and guess what I found!
Nope, wrong guess.
Nope, guess again.
Okay, I’ll just tell you: “The adjustment of raw surface temperature data is clearly necessary to overcome numerous challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge results from local factors. The earth’s population has increased from
1 billion to over 7 billion since 1900 so that the surface temperature data suffers significant contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/ land-cover changes…” etc.
In other words, an explanation of why these adjustments are necessary ARE IN THE VERY REPORT!
Mr. Adams, why are you insisting that Phile read the “paper” — which is clearly bogus and obviously NOT peer-reviewed — when it’s clear that YOU haven’t even read the “paper”! LMAO!
“In other words, an explanation of why these adjustments are necessary ARE IN THE VERY REPORT!”
Indeed. But then, getting a hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmist to understand such things is impossible: they do not wish to know.
By the way, BEST examined the Urban Island Heat Effect and concluded it is 0.19c +/- 0.19c globally. BEST also removed the UI effect from the data and found the same rate of warming as with the UI stations.
There is also a new study that shows how to correct for the effect:
https://news.uga.edu/releases/article/urban-heat-island-effect-on-temperatures-0915/
Sorry: BEST conclusion: -0.19c +/- 0.19c [I neglected the sign]
“Mr. Adams, why are you insisting that Phile read the “paper” — which is clearly bogus and obviously NOT peer-reviewed — when it’s clear that YOU haven’t even read the “paper”! LMAO!”
Indeed. In fact, I have read every single science paper published in the past 30 years that have concluded the scientific consensus is wrong— there have been eight such papers in the past 17 years. If there was a new one, I would have already read it.
Repeated yet again: IF THERE IS A PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE PAPER THAT SHOWS THE CORRECTIONS TO THE DATA ARE INCORRECT, I WANT TO READ IT! So trot it out already “John Adams.” Produce the citation for said paper.
i love it anti-science cultists are like “but urban heat islands!”
and scientists are like “yeah, we know. we’re the ones who told you about that, dofus! we adjust the data to compensate for that.”
and anti-science cultists are like “but you adjust the data!”
and scientists are like, “yeah, to compensate for the urban heat island effect…”
and anti-science cultists are like “but urban heat islands!”
and scientists are like “yeah, we know. we adjust the data to compensate…. look, do you want the raw data or the adjusted data? you know what, never mind, here’s both.”
and anti-science cultists are like “but you adjust the data!”
Even 95% of the world’s ice masses are in on the conspiracy! Two examples:
Antarctic ice mass loss:
ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/mascon/RL05/JPL/CRI/mass_variability_time_series/antarctica_mass_200204_201608.txt
Greenland ice mass loss:
ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/mascon/RL05/JPL/CRI/mass_variability_time_series/greenland_mass_200204_201608.txt
I don’t know, Phile – I think I’m willing to trust the person who did t even read the one “paper” they cited but didn’t it convinced them anyways (well, “it” didn’t because they didn’t read it, so I guess what I mean to say is their opinion was set and unchangeable anyways), over someone who’s carefully read every actually peer-reviewed paper ever published that goes against their beliefs and still remains unconvinced. But you know… It’s a balancing act.
I can’t help but think: if only the raw data was published publicly, as well as method to compensate for inconsistencies such as using a mercury thermometer vs more modern and accurate measuring instruments, and how to get then all on the same sort of… Consistent… Page, and then not only the results of those corrections but also the methods of those corrections… I think if that was also published publicly ad available for everyone to evaluate for themselves, I think we could get a better sense of the empirical reality.
Now that I think if it, I think that these sorts of ideas and principles are so important that they should have their own field. I think I’ll call it “Science”.
What do you think of the name?
“I can’t help but think: if only the raw data was published publicly….”
Yes, it is and has been available to anyone and everyone who wants it.
Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Climate Depot, the Blaze and many other blogs recently claimed that most of the observed global warming would be due to correction of temperature observations. This claim is false and relies on a document written by three individuals who have no track record of publishing scientific research on the topic, and who have not submitted their “work” to a peer-reviewed scientific journals, but simply uploaded a pdf on a wordpress blog.
Besides being based on poor source, the claim amounts to saying that the Earth’s surface has not warmed, which is in contradiction to the many lines of evidence independent from temperature measurements that also confirm the warming trend (eg glaciers retreating, changing harvest dates, sea level rising…).
Takeaway: Check your sources and make sure a claim is consistent with the broad body of evidence.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
“Takeaway: Check your sources and make sure a claim is consistent with the broad body of evidence.”
…or prepare yourself for a frickin’ deluge of embarrasement and ridicule achieved with minimal, if any, effort.
..also, READ.
Some idiots still don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the dog, zig-zagging along the beach. It seems chaotic. Climate is the course it took from point A to point B.
https://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k
“We have all the raw temperature records today, and we can compare them to the adjusted data to see what, exactly, adjustments do to the temperature record. It turns out that adjustments actually result in less warming over the past century, not more. If we scientists were “cooking the books”, then we are doing so in the wrong direction.”
“Journal name, publication date, page number for first page, and page number for reviewer notes will be fine. Thank you in advance.”
*CRICKETS*
Hey, wilting daisies snow flakes who hate science! You have had *DECADES* to complain about scientists’ conclusions about human-caused climate change, yet you only complain *AFTER* they report on their conclusions. Now you have a chance to correct all of the world’s geophysicists before they publish their report:
https://ipcc.ch/apps/comments/sr15/fod/register.php
*CRICKETS*
Deserphile, while I respect your methods and it doesn’t matter at all what get we agree because reality doesn’t give a sh*t about what we think, I lament the time we’ve all wasted communicating basic science principles that everyone here should have learned in high school, and you are certainly no exception.
I think the idea that we should respond to ignorance and misinformation with relentless facts and data is a sound idea. And I think this little test serves as an example of its success.
Though we must accept that such tests as this will sometimes fail, but this is no evidence that the strategy is wrong
And let me be the first to thank you for your time, and also the first to apologize that it took so much of it!
<"I think the idea that we should respond to ignorance and misinformation with relentless facts and data is a sound idea. And I think this little test serves as an example of its success."
The denial of observed, demonstrable reality has been extensively studied by psychologists and sociologists; there are a few good books on the subject. The horrifying truth is that when a denier sees evidence showing her or his belief is wrong, she or he becomes more firmly entrenched in their false belief. On the plus side, when us skeptics see evidence showing we are wrong, we almost always abandon our false belief.
ANYONE and EVERYONE who sees mistakes or flaws in the science behind human-caused climate change have been and are still encouraged to point out those mistakes or flaws. The IPCC has been asking for anyone and everyone to review their assessment reports before the reports are published. That does mean *ANYONE* and *EVERYONE.* Odd how denialists refuse to accept that request….. until after the reports are published, then they are enraged at not being consulted. Heh!
Therein lies the conundrum! Those who change their beliefs when nee information is presented, one really doesn’t need to spen much effort, you just state the facts and evidence and the rest is practically automatic. But for those who don’t, the whole thing seems to work backwards. But if you try to do it backwards – state the opposite of the truth – that doesn’t work either.
For science this isn’t a problem, for anyone who can’t listen and incorporate new information won’t survive peer review. For policy, however, there is no such. Everyone gets a vote.
And so we’re left with the realization that the most rewarding progress is also the most frustrating and difficult. And the way forward is apparently not forward – or backwards.
But how about sideways? Maybe what we need to figure out is a better approach to communication. We know for instance of one alternative: silence. As irresponsible as it sounds, when pushing forward moves backwards and pushing backwards moves backwards, perhaps not pushing at all is pushing fastest!
Of course we’d like to move forward faster than not at all! And I’ve done some research and given it some thought. I recall two things:
From a neural and psychological perspective, well you can’t get to them through reason, so instead try to identify the emotions that drive them. Find their values and work from that. Also you need to get then not just to understand but to feel that you’re “on their side”, so to speak. You need to make them feel like you’re aiding them, not attacking them.
The other thing I recall is that those that do eventually learn something new, learn it after truly massive amounts of repitition. So while repitition may create a lot of entrenched delusions due to the backfire effect, it is still the only way to release anyone of their delusions, however few.
“But how about sideways? Maybe what we need to figure out is a better approach to communication.”
Blaise Pascal wrote an essay on the subject over 300 years ago. He noted that people who hold irrational beliefs that are contrary to observed reality will not abandon their beliefs in the face of evidence. Showing a person that they are wrong about something they have an emotional investment in (such as believing the world’s geophysicists are all liberal Chinese socialist communist) does not work to correct their false beliefs.
The good thing is, it works mostly on wrong beliefs. That is spooky because it implies that denialists know they are wrong.
Pascal suggested that the first step in helping a denialist accept demonstrable reality is to complement the denialist on everything the denialist got right— accentuate the positive. The denialist will then be more accepting of evidence that shows the denialist’s belief is wrong.
The problem, of course, is that climate-change deniers almost never get anything correct.
Touché.
I think it works works mostly on wrong beliefs because they feel they are taking a risk by operating on little information. And that’s actually a good thing, if you think about it in terms of wager theory: the idea being that higher risk can be higher reward. The thought is that they might have a great contribution to society by overturning the “false” beliefs much like Einstien overturned Newtonian gravity. The novelty increases the potential for value. So it becomes a sort of “sunk cost” for pride. Like the gambler’s fallacy. “In the next hand I can win back my loses.” But they’re never won back because statistics just doesn’t work that way.
I think there are important subtleties that are misunderstood here: firstly, that Newtonian gravity I still approximately correct, and still used in pretty much every situation that doesn’t involve extremely large distances or extremely high speeds. The second is that Einstein’s general relativity had to survive peer review, and empirical verification!
Studies of increased atmospheric CO2 on human beings and other animals, chiefly the other apes, show that cognition and critical thinking skills decrease when atmospheric CO2 increases. This was and is of great concern to the world’s space agencies and programs— carbon scrubbers in space craft, CO and CO2, must constantly be cleaned to prevent crew from experiencing mental degradation.
Now imagine a world of nine billion humans at increased atmospheric CO2.
Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/