Fine! If that's your goal, it's commendable; however, be prepared to discover the AGW "consensus" is wrong!
Ping-a-ling!
This is pre-global Cooling
What makes them different from any other Berkely crowd?
What makes them special that their final word is the final word?
Sorry, but I doubt they will be spending millions to investigate and look for all the natural climate enactors out there, they probably will troll through what has already been gathered by others.
Proving Global Warming is one thing, Proving Human Induced Armageddon Global Warming is another thing.
If they come up with anything less then they are confirming the hoax.
The earth has been warming for hundreds of years since the last ice age. This is part of the normal cycle of the earth.
The reality is that humans are biased and fallible. All of us. Pretending that you are not doesn't get you any closer to the truth.
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
That article pretty much puts the kibosh on any serious trend of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign at all of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? Beyond the centuries long slow warming of the earth and rising of the seas of course. But that is only a few millimeters per century due to the inter-glacial period we are in.
Delusions anyone?
Here is the source for you new and improved delusions.
Free for the taking. No charge.
Enjoy the results but don’t really expect much else then rewording of earlier Global Warming Thesis’s.
They still don’t like free speech
I smell whitewash.
Or is that horse manure?
I believe the project is expected by its sponsors to reaffirm the findings of the original “climategate” scientists in order to give the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms something to hang their hats on as they soundbite into their daily headline stories about renewed efforts for “cap and trade” legislation and other massive taxpayer ripoffs:
“BREAKING NEWS!!... Global warming turns out to be a critical threat to our planet after all, according to a totally objective and completely bipartisan group of top scientists who reaffirmed the conclusions of over 160 thousand previous top scientists who claimed that we must act now to stop blah blah blah.”
Bookmarked.
The temperature data are all erroneous or suspect to begin with. Can’t get around that no matter how much hand-waving is done.
Well, the saying goes:
“garbage in, garbage out”
If “the data” that they use is biased, fudged, or just plain made up then the results will be the same stuff we get from people like Gore, drivel. Is there any “objective” data for them to gather? Will they start fresh and gather new data? Exactly what would they factor in, and would they model?
I’m not a scientist, but I know you have to have good data and enough of it to make conclusions based on it, and the results have to be repeatable. I don’t think we are going to see any of that happening. I think we are going to see a ton of money go down a rabbit hole for a pre-destined conclusion that will co-incidentally get them much more grant and funding $$.
Pack of “academic” scamsters grasping at straws. How much other funded research is basically just as illusory?
I suppose its better than having the same inquiring minds spending their intellectual efforts questioning Federal Constitutional failures...
I like Muller, and would suggest that anyone who can, listen to his podcast/lectures on Physics for Future Presidents. An EXCELLENT primer into advanced physics. I have listed through two years of his lectures, and I tell you, this guy, while not a conservative, is a closet quasi-skeptic. He spouts the party line, but listen carefully and you can hear his doubt. He is also Pro-Nuclear power, and has defended GWB’s pronunciation of “NuCUlar”. Not an easy thing to do at Berkley.
They are just analyzing surface data historical records, they aren't looking at ice or earth cores, satellite data, tree rings, balloon data....
They are only looking at a thin slice of data and they may very well find a warming trend. They will not even scratch the surface on why there is a trend. Is it part of a natural cycle? Changes in the sun, the earth, or perhaps as the liberals claim, caused by man?
No thanks. We must look a lot dumber than we are.
We have a thermometer out on our deck. I can check the temp from inside the house. The other day, when I knew the temperature could not have exceeded about 40, the thermometer read 70! Can those data collection sites be any more accurate? I don’t think so...
Just by stating they have a goal they have proven they are not scientists. They are looking for an outcome and so their observations are all tainted.
This false worship of fake science is an evil thing. In the end it seems to only dupe people who have no understanding of math and science or left wing wackjobs that do not have an objective mind.
The math in the past data was manipulated
Independent critical scientific review was squashed
Peer review had/has an agenda
Scientists admitted to all of this
Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas
The Sun’s activity is the #1 influence on global tempratures
Natural cycles cause warming and cooling ... Not man
What men caused the end of the last ice age?
Limiting CO2 output is insane unless we start by killing commies, socialists, and liberals first and seeing how it works out. Otherwise I am against it in total since plants need CO2.