Climate-Denier Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Koch Brothers

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I love it half the people ranting against capitalism have retirement plans
that money is invested in retirement funds managed by capitalists.
In the same breath the capitalists oppose much of the social assistance
agenda while accepting tax incentives which are one step removed
subsidies
I think the scientists screaming about climate change receive their money
from grants and people from the activist groups who collect money by
scare tactics and muddled information. As I ask who's science all scientists
are part of someone's agenda.
Science raises questions and the radical say no crowd makes millions
making mountains out of mole hills they don't have any shame about bending
truth either
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
you know nothing of what you presume to bark about... you never have... you never will. Trust in your coveted British tabloid fake-journalists. It seems member 'Blackleaf' is having trouble providing a/the source to his described "true data"... can ya help the guy out there, hey taxi? Where's the/your true data, oh denying one? Just how big is your grand world-wide conspiracy web?

Potty meat kettle.
Just go back a few posts and you will see one Locutus posted. The one you already claimed as garbage because it didn't fit with your narrow religious views. Come to think of it blackie even posted some links clearly showing your sources to be fraudsters. Must really suck to be you.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
I'll stop you right there. There are many differences between you and I. You prefer editorials and blog science. I read papers. I'm a scientist, and you're, well I have no idea what you do for a living, but I'm highly skeptical that you're a scientist.

I give you data, and your response isn't to read it, or ask questions, but to dig in and repeat your statements as if nothing had been shown to you. You're a garden variety denier.

Lots of differences. Mostly though, I go where the data leads me.


The difference between me and you is that you believe all the tosh - much of which has, in the past, been proven to be fake - that the "climate scientists" tell you.

I don't.

Therein lies the difference between me and you.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
It looks like somebody had already figured our Greenland was melting from below. That could have saved the world a lot of money. The reason for the crust being so thin is that it sits above a line that is where the magma starts to descent to the core again, there would a suction effect on the crust above for Greenland and there is a line that goes through Hudson Bay and all the way down to the GOM that is above the area where magma sinks to the core again.

Surprise: Greenland ice gets a melt assist from Earth’s hot mantle below | Watts Up With That?
The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere. This influence is very variable spatially and has its origin in an exceptionally thin lithosphere. Consequently, there is an increased heat flow from the mantle and a complex interplay between this geothermal heating and the Greenland ice sheet. The international research initiative IceGeoHeat led by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences establishes in the current online issue of Nature Geoscience (Vol 6, August 11, 2013) that this effect cannot be neglected when modeling the ice sheet as part of a climate study.
The continental ice sheets play a central role in climate. Interactions and feedback processes between ice and temperature rise are complex and still a current research topic. The Greenland ice sheet loses about 227 gigatonnes of ice per year and contributes about 0.7 millimeters to the currently observed mean sea level change of about 3 mm per year. Existing model calculations, however, were based on a consideration of the ice cap and considered the effect of the lithosphere, i.e. the earth’s crust and upper mantle, too simplistic and primarily mechanical: the ice presses the crust down due to its weight. GFZ scientists Alexey Petrunin and Irina Rogozhina have now coupled an ice/climate model with a thermo-mechanical model for the Greenland lithosphere. “We have run the model over a simulated period of three million years, and taken into account measurements from ice cores and independent magnetic and seismic data”, says Petrunin. “Our model calculations are in good agreement with the measurements. Both the thickness of the ice sheet as well as the temperature at its base are depicted very accurately. ”
The model can even explain the difference in temperature measured at two adjacent drill holes: the thickness of the Greenland lithosphere and thus the geothermal heat flow varies greatly in narrow confines.
What does this mean for climate modeling? “The temperature at the base of the ice, and therefore the current dynamics of the Greenland ice sheet is the result of the interaction between the heat flow from the earth’s interior and the temperature changes associated with glacial cycles,” explains corresponding author Irina Rogozhina (GFZ) who initiated IceGeoHeat. “We found areas where the ice melts at the base next to other areas where the base is extremely cold.”
The current climate is influenced by processes that go far back into the history of Earth: the Greenland lithosphere is 2.8 to 1.7 billion years old and is only about 70 to 80 kilometers thick under Central Greenland. It remains to be explored why it is so exceptionally thin. It turns out, however, that the coupling of models of ice dynamics with thermo-mechanical models of the solid earth allows a more accurate view of the processes that are melting the Greenland ice.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The difference between me and you is that you believe all the tosh - much of which has, in the past, been proven to be fake - that the "climate scientists" tell you.

I don't.

Tell yourself whatever you like, there's certainly more than one difference between you and I.

Tosh. I'll respond to the junk you post from news articles. The difference between satellites and thermometer records. Here's UAH since 1979 and HADCRUT:



Parallel trend lines. Meaning equivalent trends. Sure, cherry pick a station and you can tell whatever story you want. What are you going to say about the satellites now? That stuff I posted, you know the eggheads have looked at all of the adjustments. Not fudged. Satellites confirm it.

But sure, believe whatever tosh you're told by journalists. That's cute. :lol:
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
The difference between satellites and thermometer records. Here's UAH since 1979 and HADCRUT:



Parallel trend lines. Meaning equivalent trends. Sure, cherry pick a station and you can tell whatever story you want. What are you going to say about the satellites now? That stuff I posted, you know the eggheads have looked at all of the adjustments. Not fudged. Satellites confirm it.

But sure, believe whatever tosh you're told by journalists. That's cute. :lol:

as you're aware, all data, all methodologies, all computing processes, used by the organizations in providing surface temperature datasets are in the public domain. Anyone can review, create and check the end results... and, as I expect you're also aware, that's exactly what over a dozen+ persons/organizations have done. From denying bloggers, to so-called "luke-warmers", to proponents... all those efforts have been formally documented and presented for review... all those efforts reaffirmed the integrity of the surface temperature record. Any so-called skeptic can do exactly that and follow the same pursuit.

which takes us back to another concurrently running CC thread concerning the Koch funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project. An undertaking that went a different way in terms of data/methodology; an alternate approach, one that also affirmed the surface temperature record dataset results --- as follows, a comparison review of the "Koch funded BEST Project"... as compared to 3 of the more prominent surface temperature datasets:





correlation with CO2 concentration/volcanic activity... as Richard Muller leader of the BEST Project stated: "this doesn't prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for warming, but to be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide."






per an earlier post/discussion focused on raw versus homogenized (adjusted) data:

as for a comparison of raw versus homogenized data....


and back to the "Koch funded" BEST Project... and a review of the adjustments performed within the BEST methodology/processing:

 
Last edited:

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I ask again.

No, his work is not discredited at all. He'll likely have more difficulty getting published though as it apepars that he contravened ethical guidelines for some of th journals in which his work was published. Those journals required authors to disclose funding.

The fact that he is funded by conservative groups is not news either. That came out in 2011.

What is more damaging to Soon is his contention that the Arctic is not warming. That one is getting harder to justify every year.

Much ado about nothing.

Too right it is. Warmists' "data" is very suspect has has been found wanting on many occasions. Much of Warmists' data is the result of much fiddling of the figures. It's been proven that Warmists have fiddled with graphs which have shown cooling over the last 100 years to make it look as though they actually show Warming. Anybody in their right mind does not believe any "data" that the Warmists have come up with. They fiddle the real data - which often shows results which show there is no Global Warming - to make it look as though warming is real.

So the conclusion I'm drawing here is you only agree with data that fits your preconceived notions of how things are.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Especially after temperature adjustments! Damn near a sauna up there after adjustments.