When James Hansen started the big global warming scam during the summer of 1988, he was 99% certain that the heatwave that summer was due to global warming.
James Hansen Saved The Planet In 1988
Written by Tony Heller
Corrupting an ‘independent’ science panel
Written by Steve Milloy
The Environmental Protection Agency has illegally stacked a key science advisory board with highly paid cronies — but nothing can be done about it. I have a comatose lawsuit to prove it.
We sued the EPA in May because a panel of the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was selected in violation of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, both of which require that CASAC be independent and unbiased.
Scientists discover light could exist in a previously unknown form
Written by Imperial College London
Artistic image of light trapped on the surface of a nanoparticle topological insulator.
Credit: Vincenzo Giannini
New research suggests that it is possible to create a new form of light by binding light to a single electron, combining the properties of both.
According to the scientists behind the study, from Imperial College London, the coupled light and electron would have properties that could lead to circuits that work with packages of light — photons — instead of electrons.
It would also allow researchers to study quantum physical phenomena, which govern particles smaller than atoms, on a visible scale.
In normal materials, light interacts with a whole host of electrons present on the surface and within the material. But by using theoretical physics to model the behaviour of light and a recently-discovered class of materials known as topological insulators, Imperial researchers have found that it could interact with just one electron on the surface.
This would create a coupling that merges some of the properties of the light and the electron. Normally, light travels in a straight line, but when bound to the electron it would instead follow its path, tracing the surface of the material.
In the study, published today in Nature Communications, Dr Vincenzo Giannini and colleagues modelled this interaction around a nanoparticle — a small sphere below 0.00000001 metres in diameter — made of a topological insulator.
Their models showed that as well as the light taking the property of the electron and circulating the particle, the electron would also take on some of the properties of the light.
Normally, as electrons are travelling along materials, such as electrical circuits, they will stop when faced with a defect. However, Dr Giannini’s team discovered that even if there were imperfections in the surface of the nanoparticle, the electron would still be able to travel onwards with the aid of the light.
If this could be adapted into photonic circuits, they would be more robust and less vulnerable to disruption and physical imperfections.
Dr Giannini said: “The results of this research will have a huge impact on the way we conceive light. Topological insulators were only discovered in the last decade, but are already providing us with new phenomena to study and new ways to explore important concepts in physics.”
Dr Giannini added that it should be possible to observe the phenomena he has modelled in experiments using current technology, and the team is working with experimental physicists to make this a reality.
He believes that the process that leads to the creation of this new form of light could be scaled up so that the phenomena could observed much more easily. Currently, quantum phenomena can only be seen when looking at very small objects or objects that have been super-cooled, but this could allow scientists to study these kinds of behaviour at room temperature.
Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Imperial College London. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
- G. Siroki, D.K.K. Lee, P. D. Haynes, V. Giannini. Single-electron induced surface plasmons on a topological nanoparticle. Nature Communications, 2016; 7: 12375 DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS12375
NEW SOLAR RESEARCH RAISES CLIMATE QUESTIONS, TRIGGERS ATTACKS
Written by Global Warming Policy Forum
Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.
The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.
German Scientists Say It’s “Game Over” For “Potsdam Climate Alarm Factory”
Written by P Gosselin
At their “Die kalte Sonne” site, geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt write that Stefan Rahmstorf of the alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research has had to watch another one of his alarmist claims go down in flames.
In March 2015 Stefan Rahmstorf (“stefan”) spread a hyped up alarm story at the IPCC-friendly climate blog Real Climate.
A cold anomaly in the Atlantic, off the east coast of Greenland, was alleged to be the proof that the Gulf Stream was gradually weakening – a consequence of man-made climate warming!
“stefan” wrote at Realclimate:
What’s going on in the North Atlantic?
The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled. Last winter there even was the coldest on record – while globally it was the hottest on record. Our recent study (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) attributes this to a weakening of the Gulf Stream System, which is apparently unique in the last thousand years. […] It happens to be just that area for which climate models predict a cooling when the Gulf Stream System weakens (experts speak of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or AMOC, as part of the global thermohaline circulation). That this might happen as a result of global warming is discussed in the scientific community since the 1980s – since Wally Broecker’s classical Nature article “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” Meanwhile evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway.
Rahmstorf showed the following chart (“Linear temperature trend from 1900 to 2013″):
In his post the Postdam PIK scientist painted a climate horror scenario, suggesting that it was something far worse than anything ever previously anticipated.
Subsequently international colleagues took it upon themselves to validate the Rahmstorfian horror scenario. One year later we now have the results of the examination.
On June 29, 2016, Femke de Jong and Laura de Steur of the Dutch NIOZ Institute at the OSNAP project site announced the results in a press release: Rahmstorf and his model were totally off. The especially observed North Atlantic cold anomaly in the winter 2014/15 had nothing to do with a weakening Gulf Stream, rather it was much more the consequence of a powerful vertical mixing with cold low level water.
The press release states:
A new record in mixing of surface and deep ocean water in the Irminger Sea has important consequences for the Atlantic overturning circulation
Scientists Femke de Jong and Laura de Steur of the NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research have shown that the recent temperature changes in the Irminger Sea between Iceland and Greenland can be explained through regional ocean-atmosphere interaction during the cold winter of 2014-2015. This rejects a hypothesis that posed that increased meltwater from Greenland weakened deep water formation and caused the cold blob. The article by de Jong and de Steur is accepted by Geophysical Research letters and has appeared online.
Deep water formation is an important process in the global ocean circulation. When high latitude winters are cold enough, the salty surface water of the North Atlantic cools enough to increase its density and mix with underlying deeper waters. This mixing is called deep convection. It forms the vertical link between the warm northward flow near the surface and the cold southward flow along the bottom, which is generally referred to as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The transport of warm water in the overturning circulation is partly responsible for the mild climate in northwestern Europe compared to similar latitudes in North America.
In climate model simulations the strength of convection south of Greenland is related to the strength of the overturning circulation. Some models predict that convection will weaken due to the input of freshwater released from the melting ice on Greenland. Because of the much lower density of freshwater compared to seawater it forms a barrier that isolates the deep ocean from the cold atmosphere. While the majority of the Earth warms as a result of climate change the region around southern Greenland would cool.
In temperature observations of the earth’s surface in 2015 a similar pattern seems to appear. The Earth warmed while the ocean southeast of Greenland cooled. This led to speculation that convection had already weakened as a result of increased melting of Greenland’s icecap. It would mean that the overturning circulation would be affected faster than expected.
Instruments moored in the Irminger Sea, southeast of Greenland, shows that this is not (yet) the case. This mooring, deployed by the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) at 3 km depth in 2003, shows that convection strengthened in recent years. Record depths of convection were observed in the Irminger Sea in the winter of 2014-2015. This strong mixing was caused by an extremely cold and long winter. Two NIOZ scientists, Femke de Jong and Laura de Steur, have shown that the temperature evolution in the Irminger Sea (including the strong decrease in 2015) can be explained through regional interaction between the ocean and atmosphere. The manuscript that describes the convection and explains the temperature changes is accepted in Geophysical Research Letters. This coincides with a publication by a German group in Nature Geoscience this week, in which they use a model to show that it will take some time before freshwater from Greenland enters the deep water formation regions in large enough amount to weaken convection.
The measurements in the Irminger Sea were partly funded by the European North Atlantic CLIMate (NACLIM) project and are part of the international OSNAP (Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program). The goal of OSNAP is to quantify the overturning circulation and its heat transport at high latitudes and to establish a relation to convection and wind forcing. On the 26th of July a research expedition will return to the Irminger Sea to recover the NIOZ and other OSNAP moorings and do a hydrographic survey. This cruise can be followed on the OSNAP blog at www.o-snap.org. A short video documentary of last year’s cruise can be found on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-lhCIQjE4c).
In the paper’s abstract in the Geophysical Research Letters, Femke de Jong and Laura de Steur leave little doubt that the Gulf Stream continues to flow reliably:
Strong winter cooling over the Irminger Sea in winter 2014–2015, exceptional deep convection, and the emergence of anomalously low SST
Deep convection is presumed to be vital for the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, even though observational evidence for the link remains inconclusive. Modeling studies have suggested that convection will weaken as a result of enhanced freshwater input. The emergence of anomalously low sea surface temperature in the subpolar North Atlantic has led to speculation that this process is already at work. Here we show that strong atmospheric forcing in the winter of 2014–2015, associated with a high North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index, produced record mixed layer depths in the Irminger Sea. Local mixing removed the stratification of the upper 1400 m and ventilated the basin to middepths resembling a state similar to the mid-1990s when a positive NAO also prevailed. We show that the strong local atmospheric forcing is predominantly responsible for the negative sea surface temperature anomalies observed in the subpolar North Atlantic in 2015 and that there is no evidence of permanently weakened deep convection.”
This is yet another failure for Stefan Rahmstorf and his Potsdam climate alarmism factory.
It is refreshing to see that the international research community is increasingly resisting these dubious PIK creations. It is also time for the German press to report on these results for the sake of balance. The Washington Post showed how to do it on 30 June 2016:
The mysterious ‘cold blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean is starting to give up its secrets
[…] Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean physicist with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and author of the study mentioned above, has writtenthat very cold temperatures in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean in the winter of 2014-2015 “suggests the decline of the circulation has progressed even further now than we documented in the paper.” But in a new study in Geophysical Research Letters reporting on deep ocean measurements from this region, two researchers present an alternative interpretation. They say that they found “exceptional” levels of deep ocean convection, or mixing of surface waters with deep waters of a sort that helps drive the overturning circulation, during in the winter of 2014-2015 — the height of the cold “blob.” And they attribute that temperature phenomenon to natural climate variability, driven by local weather and winds. “We find that the observed temperature variability is explained without invoking a trend in the lateral heat transport that would be representative of an AMOC slowdown,” Femke de Jong and Laura de Steur of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research write in the paper. […]”
Read the entire article at the Washington Post.
Preface to Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics
Written by William M Briggs
The book is now at a 15% discount at Amazon (I apologize for the price). Buy today. And buy again tomorrow! This will be linked permanently on the book’s official page.Springer has once again changed prices to match Amazon. Amazon now has a Kindle version. As of this post, there have been almost 900 downloads at Springer.
Fellow users of probability, statistics, and computer “learning” algorithms, physics and social science modelers, big data wranglers, philosophers of science, epistemologists; other respected citizens. We’re doing it wrong.
Not completely wrong; not everywhere; not all the time; but far more often, far more pervasively, and in far more areas than you’d imagine.
What are we doing wrong? Probability, statistics, causality, modeling, deciding, communicating, uncertainty. Everything to do with evidence.
Astrophysicist Murry Salby Compares CO2 “Pseudo-Science” To The Medical Quackery Of Blood-Letting!
Written by P Gosselin
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, formerly of Macquarie University in Australia, gave a damning presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
110 Nobel laureates warn Greenpeace of “crime against humanity” on GMOs
Written by Ivo Vegter
In an open letter addressed to Greenpeace, the United Nations, and the world’s governments, a staggering 110 Nobel-winning scientists called upon the organisation to cease its campaign against genetically-modified organisms and biotechnology in agriculture. 
Genetic modification of crops has a long and storied history. Ever since humanity began to grow crops for food, over 10,000 years ago, farmers have been selecting plants for desirable traits. Humanity began to speed along evolution, choosing cultivars (from “cultivated varieties”) for properties such as shorter growing seasons, better resistance to cold, drought or pests, larger fruit and higher nutritional value.
Alongside the farmers’ work, people began to preserve food against spoilage, using processing techniques such as drying, fermentation, pickling, salting, sugaring, smoking and cooling.
These advances have made it possible for billions of people to eat better than their forebears ever did, relying on the labour and land of only a small fraction of the population to free up their time for other productive pursuits.
The progress of science has its opponents, however. Chief among them is the environmental movement, often led by the radical activist group, Greenpeace. Originally formed by Vietnam-era anti-war activists to protest nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, the organisation broadened its scope to address many other environmental issues. Over the decades, it has grown into an international behemoth operating in 40 countries, and claiming over three million supporters who donate an annual budget of $360 million. Despite its tax-exempt status in most countries, it is a huge business, forever needing new and more sensational campaigns to make sure the money keeps rolling in.
From laudable beginnings, opposing nuclear bomb testing and environmental pollution, the organisation has become ever-more dogmatically opposed to industry of all kinds. It protests all forms of energy except wind and solar, even though nuclear energy is the safest, greenest form of energy in existence. It protests all forms of mining, although both the wind and solar power industries rely heavily on mining, especially of rare earth metals. These elements are called “rare” not because of their scarcity, but because they are not concentrated as ore deposits. Extraction of rare earth metals requires strip mining on a vast scale, processing using toxic acids, and leaving vast quantities of radioactive slurry in its wake.
Greenpeace doesn’t like the fishing industry, because of the depletion of certain fish stocks and the incidental damage caused by by-catch, but it also opposes aquaculture, as fisheries turn to fish farmed in limited and controlled environments.
While opposing the use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers, it also opposes biotechnology that reduces the use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers. It opposes farm runoff and deforestation to make way for croplands, but it also opposes the scientific advances in agriculture that increase yields, thereby reducing agricultural pollution and the destruction of natural environments for new farmland.
Recently, 110 Nobel laureates, mostly in medicine, physics and chemistry – including James Watson, famed for co-discovering the structure of DNA – challenged the organisation’s incoherent approach to science and the environment. In an open letter, they asked Greenpeace to abandon its unscientific campaign against genetically-modified organisms. They write:
“The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.
“We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular.
“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”
The irony of the opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture is that modern biotechnology isn’t fundamentally different from what farmers have been doing for millennia. Far from taking greater risks by “playing with nature”, as Greenpeace alleges, the techniques for improving crops are becoming ever-more precise.
In the past, farmers selected crops for favourable traits, and hoped for the best. They learnt to cross-breed plant varieties, which was essentially an attempt to combine the genetic material of two plants with different desirable traits. Many of these attempts at creating new, improved plants failed, because of the random nature of DNA inheritance. The process of creating new, successful cultivars was painstaking and could take many years. Many of the plants we know and love today, like the carrot, which originally was yellow or purple, are the product of cross-breeding hundreds of years ago.
In 1940, plant breeders discovered that exposure to radiation could accelerate the rate at which plants mutated. Plants would develop that had random genetic changes. Those that proved desirable were kept for further breeding, while plants with undesirable traits were discarded. This process was no more reliable than cross-breeding, but was significantly faster.
Meanwhile, nature had also been modifying plants, using viruses to introduce new genes and background radiation to damage existing DNA. As scientists learned more about these processes, the modern field of biotechnology developed. Today’s genetic engineering builds on the early, scattershot attempts to mash together different genetic stock by manipulating only very specific genes, of which the purpose is known. This makes genetic modification by modern means far safer than the unpredictable process that farmers have used for thousands of years, although in essence, it is no different.
The benefits of crops improved by biotechnology are as numerous as one could hope for: better drought, heat and cold resistance; better defences against pests and diseases; less need for fertilisers and pesticides; less labour required for weeding; better-tasting and more nutritious foods; lower rates of malnutrition and vitamin-deficiency among the poor; and better returns for small-scale farmers. Ultimately, genetic engineering is offering higher yields of better food to feed the planet’s growing population with fewer resources than ever. Who can be against that?
Activists talk about “genetic pollution”, and other such vague terms to stir up fear and distrust. However, there is no scientific reason to believe that genetically modified organisms are in any way harmful to humans, any more than orange carrots are harmful to our health. Decades of widespread use of GMO crops, and thousands of scientific studies, have not found anything to suggest that genetic engineering poses any threat to human health. The handful of contrary papers have been widely discredited or retracted, or remain highly speculative.
The fear of genetic manipulation is fuelled by the sensationalist rhetoric of organisations like Greenpeace, and finds fertile soil in the minds of people who know little – if anything – about either science or agriculture, and often are wealthy enough to prefer expensive, elitist alternatives. But lobby groups with immense propaganda resources like Greenpeace also have a powerful voice in politics, and even in our schools and academia. By inserting themselves into the politics of food, they foist their ill-informed, unscientific prejudices on everyone else. This is morally unconscionable.
If people want to believe genetic engineering is from the devil, they’re free to demand food that is labelled as GMO-free. Plenty corporations would be glad to profit from their ignorance. Many already are.
Fearful, misinformed people should not, however, demand that all other food be covered with implicit warnings about GMOs, when such warning serve only to add expense to the production of food. In essence, all our modern food, without exception, is genetically modified. It’s time Greenpeace and other radical green activists accept the scientific reality and move along without doing any more harm.
“Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped,” the 110 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote. “How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a ‘crime against humanity’?”
How many, indeed, Greenpeace?
****
Read more at www.dailymaverick.co.za
Egg on Face: Monckton Capitulates to Slayer Science
Written by Joseph E Postma
So apparently there is some climate conference happening in London come this September:
Independent Committee on Geoethics: London Conference 2016
Christopher Monckton (pictured) is a member of the organization committee. 
Why the focus on Monckton? Because he has been in the past one of the greatest foes of the Slayer’s rational approach to criticizing the basis of climate alarm, going so far as to threaten each and every one of us with being personally sued for daring to state that other independent scientists, such as Fred Singer, basically agree with us.
Solar Cycle 24 Continues To Be Weakest In Close To 200 Years
Written by Frank Bosse & Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Our sole relevant source of energy at the center of our solar system was quieter than normal in July for our current solar cycle (SC) 24. The entire cycle so far has only been 56% as active as the mean cycle.
And with a sunspot number (SSN) of 32.5 in July, it was only 42% as active as the mean for the 92nd month into the cycle. Compared to a month earlier (only 27%) it was a slight uptick:
Veins on Mars were formed by evaporating ancient lakes
Written by University of Leicester
Mineral veins found in Mars’s Gale Crater were formed by the evaporation of ancient Martian lakes, a new study has shown.
The research, by Mars Science Laboratory Participating Scientists at The Open University and the University of Leicester, used the Mars Curiosity rover to explore Yellowknife Bay in Gale Crater on Mars, examining the mineralogy of veins that were paths for groundwater in mudstones.
The study suggests that the veins formed as the sediments from the ancient lake were buried, heated to about 50 degrees Celsius and corroded.
Professor John Bridges from the University of Leicester Department of Physics and Astronomy said: “The taste of this Martian groundwater would be rather unpleasant, with about 20 times the content of sulphate and sodium than bottled mineral water for instance!
“However as Dr Schwenzer from The Open University concludes, some microbes on Earth do like sulphur and iron rich fluids, because they can use those two elements to gain energy. Therefore, for the question of habitability at Gale Crater the taste of the water is very exciting news.”
The researchers suggest that evaporation of ancient lakes in the Yellowknife Bay would have led to the formation of silica and sulphate-rich deposits.
Subsequent dissolution by groundwater of these deposits — which the team predict are present in the Gale Crater sedimentary succession — led to the formation of pure sulphate veins within the Yellowknife Bay mudstone.
The study predicts the original precipitate was likely gypsum, which dehydrated during the lake’s burial.
The team compared the Gale Crater waters with fluids modelled for Martian meteorites shergottites, nakhlites and the ancient meteorite ALH 84001, as well as rocks analysed by the Mars Exploration rovers and with terrestrial ground and surface waters.
The aqueous solution present during sediment alteration associated with mineral vein formation at Gale Crater was found to be high in sodium, potassium and silicon, but had low magnesium, iron and aluminium concentrations and had a near neutral to alkaline pH level.
The mudstones with sulphate veins in the Gale Crater were also found to be close in composition to rocks in Watchet Bay in North Devon, highlighting a terrestrial analogue which supports the model of dissolution of a mixed silica and sulphate-rich shallow horizon to form pure sulphate veins.
Ashwin Vasavada, Curiosity Project Scientist from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory said: “These result provide further evidence for the long and varied history of water in Gale Crater. Multiple generations of fluids, each with a unique chemistry, must have been present to account for what we find in the rock record today.”
“Bond Event Right Now”: All of the Solar cycles are coming together
Written by F. Guimaraes
We know too little about the Sun, despite all our efforts since the XVII century, but one thing is strikingly evident from all these studies, i.e., the cyclic nature of the solar radiation and its obvious, 
direct influence on Earth’s climate, with scales from few years to many thousands of years.
It seems that these very cycles are telling us that the new Ice Age is coming.
A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum
Written by Dr Tim Ball
There is frustration and reward when an article appears on the same topic of an article you are completing – in this case the Holocene. Such was the case this week with Andy May’s article “A Review of temperature reconstructions.” Andy points out the basic problems of reconstruction using proxy data for the most recent half of the Holocene – an issue central to historical climate and climate change studies. His paper did not alter my paper except as it reinforces some arguments.
This article examines the entire Holocene and illustrates the history that influenced the studies. There are two distinct parts to the studies, the pre and post Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The former is a genuine scientific struggle with issues of terminology and reconstruction, and the latter a scientific struggle to impose a political perspective regardless of the evidence. Because of the damage done to climatology by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), both parts require explanation.
The Inquisition followed sound science
Written by Jacob Haqq-Misra
When Pope John Paul II announced in 1992 that Galileo was correct, more than 350 years after his condemnation by the Inquisition, the world reacted with apathy, relief, and amusement. No one doubts any more that Earth revolves around the sun, and even private Catholic schools had been teaching heliocentricity to their students prior to the official apology. 
Our historical understanding of the Galileo affair tends to implicate the church as clinging unnecessarily to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which required the faithful to accept the untenable theory of geocentrism. From elementary school onward, we’re taught that the church stood firmly athwart scientific progress, bellowing “Stop!” Indeed, the clash has gone down through the ages as a sort of morality play of science versus religion, pitting the proponents of progress against religious reactionaries. But what if that morality play itself is nothing more than dogma?
Greenland ice cores reveal warm climate of the past
Written by Niels Bohr Institute
In the period between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, Earth’s climate was warmer than today. But how much warmer was it and what did the warming do to global sea levels? – as we face global warming in the future, the answer to these questions is becoming very important. New research from the NEEM ice core drilling project in Greenland shows that the period was warmer than previously thought. The international research project is led by researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute and the very important results are published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature. 
In the last million years the Earth’s climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
Climate Change Agenda and the Role of Bureaucratic Scientists
Written by Dr Tim Ball
I began this article before the resignation of NCEI director Tom Karl was announced. His replacement will, like James Hansen’s replacement at NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, continue the climate adjustment program. They perpetuate themselves and their agenda; it is the nature of bureaucracies. Laurence J. Peter, author, and creator of the Peter principle expressed it well when he wrote,
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.
Karl’s resignation makes this article more germane to the wider problem of bureaucracy in general and specifically bureaucratic scientists.