$17 M Canadian Arctic Climate change study Cancelled

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Before Sundance swings in and starts posting charts of growing ice pack in the Arctic and Antarctica, lets have a little discussion about it. When you think about growing ice packs, you actually need to think in reverse. We all know (hopefully) that fresh water freezes at around 0 degrees Celcius - or 32 Fahrenheit. Salt water takes a little more time, but the difference is only 2 degrees.

What happens when you add fresh water to salt water? You change the salinity. So, we need to ask ourselves - why is the pack ice growing during global warming? Science knows the salinity of the ocean surrounding Antarctica is changing.

2 degrees doesn't sound like much in the grand scheme of things. But lets look at the human body, 98.6 F is our sustained temperature, we need that to function. Add 2 degrees to your core temp permanantly, you won't function. Take 2 degrees away permanently, you won't function.

So yeah, sorry, growing pack ice is not an indication that global warming doesn't exist.

Cheers.

So when frozen salt water ice melts it dilutes the salt water its floating in?

BW

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

So when frozen salt water ice melts it dilutes the salt water its floating in?

BW

Argggg, ye landlubber. Sea ice can be melted and drank. It's fresh water frozen, very little salt.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Argggg, ye landlubber. Sea ice can be melted and drank. It's fresh water frozen, very little salt.

I learned something knew. Thank you

BW

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

I learned something knew. Thank you

BW

Icebergs do make a decent vodka though.

[Buckhead]

Anthropogenic global warming is a huge scam.

Ice freezes, ice melts. Meaningless to the larger scheme of things.

We are in an interglacial warm period. The earth is supposed to be warming up.

Would you rather have it cooling.

No matter what happens people will use that as fearmongering to advance their own agendas.

None of the research I have seen indicates that human activity is the cause of global warming - if there even is any - since NASA satellites have not shown any appreciable warming for the last 20 years.

[HoytCRX32]

It's not about "Global Warming" anymore...now it's "Climate Change"....and I'm sure it's still all our (Alberta) fault.

[scalerman]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Read up on it, quite interesting actually. i'm not declaring the sky is falling either. But to sit here and believe that the current population of 7.5 billion humans - plus all the infrastructure to support that population - isn't having any effect on the planet?

I'll hear people today declaring no global warming cause it's cold in Edmonton today. Well, sorry, but the jet stream is south of us and there's a prevailing northwest wind - yeah, it's going to be chilly.

But if that's your data set for global warming, that would be akin to taking a glass of water from the ocean, examining it with your eyes and declaring there's no life in the ocean.

There are articles from the late 1800's, early 1900's showing concern over the use of coal and pollution.

I have read upon it my friend. This whole "global warming" " climate change" farce forgets one thing, matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction, the state in which an element is in changes but the mass does not. The fact of the matter is that there has always been this amount of carbon on the earth and regardless of what we as humans do the amount will remain the same. The form that the carbon takes has changed but not the amount. A single volcano release more CO2 into the atmosphere than generations of human activity, perhaps we need to seal all of those off and start taxing them too. The premise is ludicrous, the idea is idiotic and is to spread fear among the masses in order to gain control over their actions and thoughts. Bunk pure and simple.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by buschy03

David Suzuki and that whole group can k-- my a--!!

David Suzuki is the biggest hypocrite to walk the earth. Biologists (theorists) are to lazy to get real jobs, so they leach off the tax payer. It's easy the ice has been melting for millions of years.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by scalerman

I have read upon it my friend. This whole "global warming" " climate change" farce forgets one thing, matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction, the state in which an element is in changes but the mass does not. The fact of the matter is that there has always been this amount of carbon on the earth and regardless of what we as humans do the amount will remain the same. The form that the carbon takes has changed but not the amount. A single volcano release more CO2 into the atmosphere than generations of human activity, perhaps we need to seal all of those off and start taxing them too. The premise is ludicrous, the idea is idiotic and is to spread fear among the masses in order to gain control over their actions and thoughts. Bunk pure and simple.

Absolute vs relative. Ok, so for the sake of argument...

Most people believe that Mount Everest is the highest point on earth - and it is if you take a reading from sea level... Change perspective, take the measurement from the centre of the earth and Chimborazo in Equador is the highest point. Why, because the earth isn't actually a perfect sphere. If you're solid as a rock in your belief, you won't look for that perspective.

When looking at the earth's temperature, look at charts that measure from zero degrees Celcius or Fahrenheit - doesn't give the whole picture. Look at it from the viewpoint as measured relative to absolute zero and the picture changes.

The argument you're putting forth is a good one. And, from your absolute perspective, you are right.

However, rewind a thousand years before the industrial revolution. Was the earth healthy and clean? The planet would be in balance, and all of the carbon in existence would be absorbed, released into the atmosphere, absorbed again - occasional volcanic eruption - and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

And yes, earth goes through cycles, so does the sun - the moon is moving away from the earth, the earth is moving away from the sun.

In the perfect world, all the carbon buried deep in the earth in the form of coal, oil, gas etc would have stayed there. That carbon has been in the earth hundred of millions of years, billions of years. And if it had stayed in place, the temperatures over the course of hundreds and thousands of years would still not have changed - to this day.

How much oil, coal, natural gas etc has been pulled from Alberta alone? We are adding to the natural cycle - that's the whole premise of global warming or whatever you want to call it.

Do I believe it all? I'm not sure, but one has to keep an open mind about it. As I said earlier, there's too much left and right on the issue, not enough centre.

[scalerman]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Absolute vs relative. Ok, so for the sake of argument...

Most people believe that Mount Everest is the highest point on earth - and it is if you take a reading from sea level... Change perspective, take the measurement from the centre of the earth and Chimborazo in Equador is the highest point. Why, because the earth isn't actually a perfect sphere. If you're solid as a rock in your belief, you won't look for that perspective.

When looking at the earth's temperature, look at charts that measure from zero degrees Celcius or Fahrenheit - doesn't give the whole picture. Look at it from the viewpoint as measured relative to absolute zero and the picture changes.

The argument you're putting forth is a good one. And, from your absolute perspective, you are right.

However, rewind a thousand years before the industrial revolution. Was the earth healthy and clean? The planet would be in balance, and all of the carbon in existence would be absorbed, released into the atmosphere, absorbed again - occasional volcanic eruption - and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

And yes, earth goes through cycles, so does the sun - the moon is moving away from the earth, the earth is moving away from the sun.

In the perfect world, all the carbon buried deep in the earth in the form of coal, oil, gas etc would have stayed there. That carbon has been in the earth hundred of millions of years, billions of years. And if it had stayed in place, the temperatures over the course of hundreds and thousands of years would still not have changed - to this day.

How much oil, coal, natural gas etc has been pulled from Alberta alone? We are adding to the natural cycle - that's the whole premise of global warming or whatever you want to call it.

Do I believe it all? I'm not sure, but one has to keep an open mind about it. As I said earlier, there's too much left and right on the issue, not enough centre.

When reference is made to weather patterns in the past we can theorize, hypothesize and postulate at best. We cannot empirically state that the weather patterns were thus and so. Can it be proven that CO2 levels were higher or lower in times past? No. We have anecdotal, theoretical evidence at best. How do you know that the world was "in balance" at that time. How do we know it is "out of balance" now? Help me understand why there are mammoths frozen in arctic ice with tropical vegetation in their stomachs. That would indicate that there was a much different climate in that area of the earth prior to widespread human populations. If you truly believe that this whole biosphere is a product of chance, as I mentioned before, then what is the big deal? Evolution moves on, inferior species fall by the wayside while superior species take their place. If "global warming" or "climate change", you choose the nomenclature, is indeed caused by human activity that is something that is inevitable as a result of the "success of our species".

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by scalerman

Help me understand why there are mammoths frozen in arctic ice with tropical vegetation in their stomachs. That would indicate that there was a much different climate in that area of the earth prior to widespread human populations.

Help me understand where you're getting that from? One article please - and please, not from a creationist website.

Creationist palaeontologists believe Antarctica was a lush tropical paradise 100 million years ago. And maybe it was, but the land mass we call Antarctica today would have been nowhere near the south pole 100 million years ago.

[scalerman]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Help me understand where you're getting that from? One article please - and please, not from a creationist website.

Creationist palaeontologists believe Antarctica was a lush tropical paradise 100 million years ago. And maybe it was, but the land mass we call Antarctica today would have been nowhere near the south pole 100 million years ago.

Why the specific request? If the quoted article were from a creationist website does that make the information invalid?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by scalerman

Why the specific request? If the quoted article were from a creationist website does that make the information invalid?

Yeah, I thought so. And yes, it's invalid. Now we're going to bring creation into global warming. I'm not getting dragged into this argument on AO. PM me if you want to discuss.

[scalerman]

Woolly Mammoths: Suited for Cold?
By Philip R. Burns
medved@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
Again, the basic misunderstanding. As I see it, the question regarding mammoths in the Liakhovs, Novo-Sibirsk etc. is not whether the handful of preserved specimens we find were frozen, petrified, mummified, are in suspended animation etc. etc. That may be interesting in its own way, but is a sort of a diversion.
The question is, how given anything like the standard version of Earth history, did vast herds of such large creatures ever find food when the entire territory is covered by ice ten months of the year? Elephants are gluttonous; they spend most of their waking hours eating, in fact, McGowan has stated that he does not understand how anything ever ate enough to get bigger than elephants since there would not appear to be time in the day for it.
Velikovsky claims that these vast herds, the remnants of which are seen in those arctic circle island groups, were peacefully grazing on vast fields which were in temperal zones, when the entire surface of the Earth shifted due to one of the catastrophes he discusses, that they very quickly thus ended up in arctic regions along with their fields, and froze to death or otherwise died due to effects of the catastrophe itself.
Despite the efforts of several of the t.o crew, I have yet to hear another explanation of this phenomenon which makes any sense to me.
Mr. Holden again raises some questions about the ice age in Siberia and the presence of mammoths there. Hence, I will post my previous answer with a few modifications.
We should start by asking: what kind of animals were these woolly mammoths which inhabited the Siberian steppes? Were they suited to living in a cold climate?
Yes. We determine this by examining preserved mammoth specimens. We begin by comparing the bodies of mammoths of those of existing members of the Elephantidae (the African Loxodonta and Asian Elephas). In comparison to those of modern elephants, the bodies of mammoths were compressed lengthwise. Mammoth trunks were shorter than those of modern elephants. Mammoth ears were small, even compared to the smaller ears of today Asian elephants (the ears of African Loxodonts are much larger). Mammoth tails were much shorter than those of elephants.
Modern elephants do not have a thick covering of hair. Woolly mammoths were covered with the same kind of double fur coat as we find on other large mammals in northern climates today. The dense insulating inner coat consisted of a fine wool. The long, shaggy outer coat (some hairs as long as 50 cm) was composed of guard hairs. It appears that the mammoth changed its hair at the beginning of summer. This happens in many other arctic mammals today.
In addition to the fur coat, woolly mammoths also possessed a three-inch-thick layer of fat underneath their skin as well as an additional fat reserve stored in a hump above the shoulders.
Most mammoths, including the Siberian varieties, were about the same size as modern elephants or slightly smaller. Some were larger, such as the North American Imperial Mammoth, which reached a height of fourteen to fifteen feet (4.5 to 5 m) at the shoulder. The Siberian mammoths were smaller; about 9 feet (3 m) at the shoulder for males and 7 1/2 feet (2.5 m) for females.
Mammoth tusks also differed from those of modern elephants. Mammoth tusks curved down to form a broad bow close to the ground. This answers the question of how mammoths could break through ice-covered ground to look for forage. Even assuming that the Siberian ground was frozen -- it usually was NOT so frozen in the Pleistocene -- the mammoth could use its tusks to break through the ice and snow. Is there any evidence that mammoths actually did this? Yes. Wear patterns on mammoth tusks suggest that the mammoths used their tusks as excavation tools.
All of these items indicate that the woolly mammoth was well adapted to surviving in a cold climate. They illustrate adaptation typical of those seen in other mammals which extend their ranges into colder climates. The body increases in bulk while the total amount of exposed body surface decreases (compressed body length of mammoths, short tails and trunks, dense fur coat). There is no reason to doubt that mammoths could live in cold climates as long there was adequate forage.
(Incidentally, even modern Asian elephants tolerate cold fairly well. Elephants lived as far north as the Honan province in China into early historical times (1500 B.C.). Asian elephants also lived in what is now Syria, Iraq, and Iran. African loxodonts used to inhabit the whole of the African continent into historic times.)
Was there adequate forage for animals the size of mammoths in the steppes? The current climate of the subarctic Siberian steppes could not support large herds of mammoths assuming they required a similar volume of food as modern elephants. Much of Siberia today is covered by deeply and permanently frozen ground known as permafrost. The existing tundra vegetation is tough, low, slow-growing, and laced with bitter chemicals. These chemicals may have evolved as a defense against foraging.
However, the Siberian steppes during the last ice age were not covered in ice and snow as they are now, nor was the ground frozen. The reason is that so much of the available water was locked up in the arctic ice pack -- primarily in North America -- that the subarctic steppes were much drier than today. As a result, the Siberian soil thawed to a greater depth and supported a richer variety of plant life. This included nutritious grasses. The stomach contents of preserved mammoths indicate that they fed on such grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and fragments of willow and bilberry. Some rare poppies and buttercups have also been found in addition to small amounts of arboreal material such as larch needles, willows, and tree bark. Such variety indicates the mammoths lived in a variety of climates in Siberia. These ranged from dry and steppe-like to slightly wet to swampy to arctic/alpine.
Mammoth trunk tips were bi-lobed, useful for collecting herbaceous food. Relatively little arboreal material has been found in mammoth stomachs. Modern elephants, in contrast, prefer an arboreal diet, and their trunk tips are of unequal size.
The greater abundance and variety of steppe vegetation during the ice ages explains how the steppes could support large grazing animals like mammoths. The mammoths may also have migrated south in the winter and north in the summer. Modern elephants are great travellers, so possibly mammoths were too.
How old are the frozen mammoth remains from Siberia? They fall into two main groups, one dating from about 45,000 BP to 30,000 BP and the other from 14,000 to 11,000 BP. This does not mean that mammoths were not present in Siberia from 30,000 BP to 14,000 BP. Instead, this indicates the climatic conditions were not right for the formation of frozen carcasses. There are plenty of fossil bones of mammoths from 30,000 to 14,000 BP. This was a period of massive glacial advance, resulting in extremely dry conditions in Siberia. In these dry conditions, mammoth carcasses would tend to rot on the surface and/or be eaten by predators. In times of glacial retreat, when the climate was moister, summer mudflows and floods could rapidly cover carcasses. These covered carcasses would then become permanently frozen as the permafrost layer closed in above them during the following winter.
Was the climate warmer or colder in Siberia at the time the mammoths lived there? Well, both. It appears that at some periods the climate was warmer, at others it was colder. This is inferred by comparing the modern ranges of the plants found in mammoth stomachs as well as by astronomical calculations of temperature similar to those presented at various times in the past in this news group. The mammoths thrived in either case. The determinative factor was the decreased moisture so that the ground did not become permanently frozen as it is today. As a result, the "mammoth steppe" biome, comprised of grasses, succulent herbs, and wormwood, thrived. This biome disappeared around 9000 BP except for some small patches. It was replaced by the current boggy tundra vegetation and permafrost. The mammoths, having lost their source of food, disappeared in Siberia at about the same time. It is possible that predation by man was also partly responsible. The earliest human remains in Siberia date from the end of the last ice age.
What caused the ice ages? There have been many explanations proposed, none of which appears to be solely adequate. These include:

Variations in the earth's orbital characteristics (angle of the ecliptic, eccentricity of the orbit, precession of the equinoxes). While this is sometimes touted as being "the" explanation of the ice ages, it cannot be the sole explanation since there have been long periods without glaciation during which Earth's orbital elements matched those of recent glacial periods. The patterns of ice advance and retreat DURING an ice age do seem to track the variations in orbital characteristics.
Excessive volcanic activity -- perhaps resulting from impacts of meteors, asteroids, or comets; or perhaps associated with the collision of detached land masses with continents proper (e.g., India with the rest of Asia).
Meteoritic and/or cometary impacts resulting in a kind of "nuclear winter." This includes the possibility of regular comet showers caused by a distant unseen solar companion (often called "Nemesis") deflecting outlying cometary bodies into the inner solar system.
Passage of the solar system through interstellar dust clouds as the solar system moves up and down through the plane of the galaxy.
"Fast" slippage of the earth's crustal plates on the underlying magma, perhaps caused by imbalances in the distribution of ice on continental surfaces. (This no longer appears to be a viable theory.)
Variations in solar output. Perhaps the sun is a long-period irregular variable star.
Changes in ocean currents and temperatures caused by shifting continental configurations.
I'm sure there are other explanations I can't bring to mind right now.
Regardless of the combination of mechanisms, there have been patterns of alternating retreat and advance of glaciers, differences in global and local temperature, and differences in moisture. The climate in the subarctic regions changed several times over the course of the last set of ice ages. This is very important: the climate was not always the same as it is now in Siberia.
The mammoths managed to survive all these changes except the last one, when humans finally penetrated into Siberia. There are a number of ice-age sites in Eastern europe which contain stacks of mammoth bones, very likely representing the results of human predation. Many other species of mega-fauna disappeared at the same time as the mammoths. Whether or not humans were largely responsible for these extinctions remains a disputed question.

It appears that my memory is less than infallible. While the article does not state that tropical plants were found in the stomachs, it does indicate that the vegetation was considerably different in their habitat than it is now- evidence that the climate was considerably different than it is now.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by scalerman

It appears that my memory is less than infallible. While the article does not state that tropical plants were found in the stomachs, it does indicate that the vegetation was considerably different in their habitat than it is now- evidence that the climate was considerably different than it is now.

Oh my...

[Chuck_Wagon]

Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/brea...ey-stick-mann/

Published on July 4, 2017

Written by John O'Sullivan

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.


The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.


...

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.

In his books, articles, radio and television appearances, Dr. Ball has been resolute in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Despite the stresses and strains on himself and his family, Tim has stood at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency from government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

But at a time of much clamor about ‘fake news,’ it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr Ball and endorsed the revelations in his book. Mann reacted by moaning:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr Mann, utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.

There can be little doubt that upon the BC Supreme Court ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will feel intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.

With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is determined to go for a second such court win this coming Fall. Then he defends a similar libel lawsuit in Vancouver, filed against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

On that case Tim reports:

“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”

As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:

“Regardless of the outcomes I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats, I was qualified, and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for arts students for 25 years.”

Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr Ball concluded:

“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”

Dr Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside proper funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts skilled in critically examining claims made by so-called government ‘experts’ where they impact public policy. In the final outcome, these ‘devil’s advocates’ of science (or ‘skeptics’) are the best defense against waste and corruption.

To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this public service. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team/red team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.

[lmtada]

Was cancelled. Omar took the money and ran. Climate change group better find him.

[Freddy]

Read the 7 th last paragraph.
Interesting. The leader of the bc green party.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Read the 7 th last paragraph.
Interesting. The leader of the bc green party.

Hmmm... The plot thickens...

[Unregistered user]

Great post Chuck Wagon, it deserves its own thread. So the science isn't settled eh? What's next, someone's going to prove there are really only two sexes? (Gender is a ***** word).