http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...6ff4bd364b25ed55c228bdd957b&memtype=anonymous Lucy Smith reports for the Townsville (Queensland), Australia Bulletin: A RENOWNED climate scientist has been jailed for fraudulently claiming half a million dollars in reimbursements from his employer. Over seven years, Australian Institute of Marine Science senior researcher Daniel Michael Alongi lodged 129 claims for fictitious purchases totalling $553,420. When police caught up with him in 2015, he told them he had spent the money on rare and antique books. One book, about Captain James Cook’s journeys, cost $15,000. Alongi, 60, pleaded guilty in Townsville District Court yesterday to defrauding the Federal Government agency. Commonwealth prosecutor Chris Moore detailed Alongi’s “carefully executed” offending, which saw him earn far more than his $4000 a fortnight salary. “To support the claims he created or modified invoices, receipts and credit card statements, along with drafting fake analysis reports and email trails,” he said. Climate scientist Dr Daniel Alongi, who worked for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, leaves the Townsville Magistrates Court. (Photo: Townsville Bulletin) Compared to the gross fraud of anthropogenic global warming alarmism (that already has cost Australia dearly), this is small beer, even though the total is over half a million bucks (Australian dollars). Compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars squandered on crony green energy schemes, this is not even a rounding error. Alongi is not some minor figure in the Warmist research establishment. Eric Worrall comments: “According to Research Gate, Alongi has helped author 140 publications, and has been cited 5,861 times. All in the last few months has been bad for the image of mainstream climate science. First we had the Shukla 20 scandal, and now we have the Alongi fraud case. I’m not saying climate scientists are just in it for the money. I think there is substantial evidence that many of them truly believe. But clearly there is an awful lot of money on the table, which predominantly seems to go to scientists who support the position favoured by politicians. More than enough money to tempt the unscrupulous“. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...scientist_jailed_for_fraud.html#ixzz4s08yTeIs Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Just like James Hansen with his expense and reporting fraud. The only thing these scientists warm is the legal system - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11...now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/tantrum-climate-alarmists/ Tantrum of the climate alarmists The Climate Change Authority should be scrapped Brendan O'Neill Of all the hot air blown out by eco-alarmists, their maddest claim, the one least founded in truth, is that they are objective. That their fuel is facts and facts alone. That their guiding light is science — pure, unsullied science — rather than grubby politics. That where we, the dim, denying public, are beholden to all sorts of agendas, they, these climate seers, these wise modellers of humanity’s self-induced future doom, are motored by pure rationalism, by a slavish devotion to truth. It’s Grade-A bollocks. One should always be suspicious of people who claim to be pure of conviction. Indeed, it’s usually these people — be they finger-wagging priests or feminist warriors against filth or well-funded academic hand-wringers over dumb humanity’s pollution of the planet — who are the most moralistic of all. Their purity pose, their claim to have risen above the ideological swamp the rest of us swim in, is just throat-clearing, prep for them to lecture us from an almighty height. It’s the beautiful irony: their very self-proclamation of purity lets you know they have an agenda, and usually a really bad one. Consider the recent flounce-outs from the Climate Change Authority by eco-seers peeved that the government has refused to bow and scrape before their proposals. Last week, Danny Price and John Quiggin resigned after it became clear the government will reject the CCA’s suggestion — read demand — that Australia institute carbon pricing for the electricity industry. They’re also really annoyed, to a foot-stomping, toy-throwing degree, that the government has failed to respond to the CCA’s third report on the policies Oz needs to adopt if it doesn’t want to resemble Dante’s Inferno. How dare the government refuse to drop everything and bore itself into a state of rigor mortis by poring over the CCA’s latest turgid missive? Quiggin and Price’s sulk-off follows the resignation of Clive Hamilton in February. Hamilton, who once said human beings lack the ‘psychological maturity’ to deal with climate change (translation: bugger me, people are stupid), flounced out over the government’s favourable attitude towards the coal industry. I’m sure you will agree it’s incredible and outrageous that the government has more time for an industry that employs tens of thousands of people and makes mad amounts of money for Australia than it does for a pure professor motored by nothing more than The Science and a love of nature. The most striking thing about this tantrum of the alarmists is their anger over what they view as political pollution. As the Guardian summed it up, they think the government has become ‘beholden to right-wing, anti-science’ ideology. The government is all about ‘political point-scoring and culture war rhetoric’, said Quiggin, whereas he and his CCA comrades are all about ‘objective advice based on science’. Shorter: they’re corrupted, we’re incorruptible. Lads, come on, who you trying to kid? Climate change alarmism is political to its core. It’s a species of political prejudice, and one of the uglier ones. It’s ideology masquerading as science, or rather using science as a cover for its seemingly unspeakable black heart; which is misanthropy, a feeling of disgust for modern human society and its psychologically immature inhabitants. If you believe the likes of Quiggin and Hamilton are post-political, above agendas, cleanly ‘objective’, you’ll believe anything. Virtually everything these folks say drips with a worldview that can only be described as political. Quiggin, who like so many of the eco-pious thinks anyone who questions the politics of climate change is a bovine idiot, has a section on his website titled ‘Boneheaded Stupidity’. It’s packed with angry tracts about right-wingers and tabloids. He rages against Daily Mail readers, who ‘enjoy malicious/salacious gossip that panders to their prejudices’ and who probably lap up the ‘climate denialism’ frequently published in that ‘rag’. He slams the ‘anti-science and anti-rational views’ of the ‘political right’, by which he seems to mean right-wingers questioning some of the more bonkers claims of the end-of-world alarmists. It’s nakedly political, all fuming against the right, and hilariously aloof. Such sneering at the tabloid-addled throng who pay too much heed to demagogic ideologies that will harm both them and the planet in the long run has been the bread and butter of every snob in modern history. Objective? Do me a favour. As to Hamilton, Mr Misanthropy, whose book Requiem for a Species is a fear-filled eulogy to idiot humanity — having him in the Climate Change Authority is a bit like asking the prissiest of Christians to join a government consultation on the wisdom of sex before marriage. Hamilton doesn’t even accept the IPCC’s predictions of future doom because they don’t go far enough for his fearful tastes. They’re too cautious, he says, so he magics up his own doom-laden reading of the future, which will involve ‘uncontrollable climate change’, giving rise to a ‘chaotic era lasting thousands of years’, and whether humans will survive it is a ‘moot point’. This isn’t science. It’s fantasy. It’s the rather perverse fantasies of a bloke who thinks late-capitalist consumer society is pretty nasty. It isn’t objective. It just isn’t. It’s a worldview polluted by a feeling of exhaustion with the human project. And that is what climate change alarmism fundamentally represents: the prostitution of science to the politics of misanthropy. This is why our eco-betters can so casually slip between acting all scientific and railing against psychologically immature plebs more interested in having a big TV than saving the planet. Because they are driven by politics, and it’s the politics of fear and contempt. The Climate Change Authority is really a secular version of Iran’s Guardian Council. That self-important, interfering council is made up of 12 Islamo-seers whose job is to offer advice to the elected government on how to keep Iran pure and uncorrupted. The CCA executes an eco-version of this, wagging its bony green finger at officialdom and tut-tutting at it for elevating such grubby concerns as industry and economic growth over the purer pursuit of a brave new eco-pious Australia. I don’t understand why Josh Frydenberg and other politicians put up with this highly political carbuncle on Australian public life. Get rid of it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...hange-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0 We were wrong — worst effects of climate change can be avoided, say experts Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted
http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimato...sts_Are_Not_Noble_Stop_Paying_Them/index.html The article calls for the defunding of the climate change institute NASA GISS where I was a climate scientist for 7 years. Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). Besides, NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down.
Some excerpts below from the article. Emphasis in mine. http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimato...iority_Then_And_Global_Warming_Now/index.html Scientific Consensus: Proof of Black Inferiority Then and Global Warming Now Up until surprisingly recently there was a scientific consensus that blacks were mentally inferior, i.e., less intelligent, less human. (I use the term "black" instead of African-American because I am not just talking about Americans.) But that's history, right? Nope. Chris Mooney is a writer for (Amazon Jeff Bezos's) The Washington Post, writing about -- sigh, of course -- global warming. He is also the author of The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science -- and Reality. Mooney makes it clear in the book, using some "scientific research" he and his mother did, that the Republican brain is inherently inferior. Thus Republicans are less human. The book has been denounced by many as just eugenics. Moreover, since we have seen the nonsense that scientific consensus has "proved" in the past we must reject it as proof of anything now. Consider too that James Hansen, the father of global warming, was praised as fighting the scientific consensus at the time. If scientific consensus wasn't proof then why is it proof now?
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/ar...Articles/Template-Main&oref=www.google.com.kw Right off the bat, let’s understand that no one, much less those of us who live in Houston and other areas along the Texas coast along with my numerous friends in the entire state of Florida, need to be reminded of widespread terror and tragedy which can be wrought by a single tropical storm or hurricane event. At the same time, let’s also realize that such occurrences have been experienced with far greater frequency and fatal consequences by generations who preceded ours. A review of North Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane patterns fails to reveal any worsening trend over more than a century. The recent Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey and Hurricane Irma actually ended an almost 12-year-long drought of U.S. landfall Category 3-5 hurricanes since Wilma in 2005, whereas 14 even stronger Category 4-5 monsters occurred between 1926 and 1969. Harvey lost its Category 4 status shortly after making landfall, but nevertheless, caused catastrophic flood damage as a rain event along the southeast Texas coast. The Houston area received 52 inches of rainfall in four days. Nevertheless, this wasn’t entirely unique either. Tropical Cyclone Amelia dumped 48 inches on Texas in 1978; Tropical Storm Claudette inundated the town of Alvin, Texas, with 54 inches in 1979, emptying 43 inches in just 24 hours; and Hurricane Easy deluged Florida with 45.2 inches in 1950. The 2005 and 1961 seasons shared records for their seven major U.S. landfall hurricanes since 1946 when the instrumented wind and pressure database was first considered to be relatively reliable. The year 1983 set the record for the least number with only one. Many intense Atlantic storms formed between 1870 and 1899, 19 in the 1887 season alone, but then became infrequent again between 1900 and 1925. The number of destructive hurricanes ramped up between 1926 and 1960, including many major New England events. Major hurricanes really blasted the U.S. coast from Florida and northward over a decade between 1950 and 1960. Included were: Hazel (1954), Carol (1954), Connie (1955), Ione (1966), Audrey (1957), Gracie (1959), and Donna (1960). Twenty-one Atlantic tropical storms formed in 1933, a record only most recently exceeded in 2005 which saw 28 storms. Some major tropical storms and lower category hurricanes also caused major havoc worth noting. “Superstorm Sandy,” which ravaged the northern East Coast, resulted in more than one hundred fatalities. In terms of known human tragedy, the deadliest event was the Great Hurricane of the Antilles (1780) which struck Barbados causing 22,000 fatalities. The most deadly to hit the continental U.S. was the Galveston Hurricane of August 29, 1900, which may have killed up to 12,000 people. The Okeechobee Hurricane, also known as the San Filipe Segundo Hurricane which struck Florida in 1928 produced 2,500 fatal casualties. Katrina which had reached a Category 5 level hurricane level in 2005 before hitting the Louisiana coast as a tropical storm resulted in about 1,800 deaths. It packed wind speeds reaching 175 miles per hour, with a 20 foot storm surge which topped levies. Strong storms frequently form in warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the tropical Atlantic Ocean as far east as the Cape Verde Islands. They often strengthen over the Gulf Stream off the coast of the eastern U.S. whenever temperatures exceed 79.7 degrees F. Although the surface water temperature in the Gulf is recently about 4 degrees above average, the extent, if any, of this influence on Irma and Harvey is subject to question. The record of hurricanes between 1870 and 2010 shows that they occurred with equal frequency both when those conditions were below and above average — the storms didn’t seem to care in the least either way. The Gulf is warm enough every summer to produce a major hurricane. As with Irma, it seems that the bigger the storm, the more it weakens upon coming to the coast and onto land. Harvey got stalled as a major rain event by a major cool trough associated with the eastward-moving disturbance of clouds, rainfall, winds, and pressure that traverses the planet every 30 to 60 days or so. The ones that “blow up” tend to be smaller, weaker storms like Charley (2004) which still packed a fist of fury. In reality, whereas we can’t change the weather, it truly is in our best interest to anticipate those bad-case circumstances and prepare our communities and households to mitigate against the outcomes. Whether or not one such event gets hyped on the media as the “biggest ever,” “strongest ever,” “deadliest ever,” or “costliest ever,” it may qualify as the worst ever for you. Consider this grim reality well in advance of every storm season when there is still time to plan and take prudent preemptive actions. Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to forget to do this on nice sunny days.
Hopefully we will not have a major volcanic winter coming up. There are a couple people here who have an attention span longer than a hummingbird's and will read these two links and go hmmmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://in.reuters.com/article/us-i...alert-level-thousands-evacuated-idINKCN1BX0I7
SCIENCE & TECH 3 decades of alarmists' false climate prophesies unfulfilled Wednesday, August 8, 2018 | Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com) Shabecoff wrote in his June 24, 1988, NYTpiece. “The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.” Joining the party That year, Shabecoff’s alarmism blaming industrialized society was buttressed by two scientists’ bogus predictions – a trend that has seen one ominous climate forecast after another fail … year after year. “[P]redictions made on that day – and ever since – continue to be falsified in the real world,” Bradley stressed in his report. “The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988 – and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff – constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).” The pseudo-science based on the concept of global warming scared mainstream media connoisseurs and easily influenced students attending America’s public schools and universities, who have been taught that crops and people would soon die if society doesn’t adopt ultra-green environmentalists practices and policies to “save the Earth.” “Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified – and by a lot – not a little,” Bradley pointed out. “Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world. Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees … at the 30-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about 1 degree – and largely holding (the much-discussed ‘pause’ or ‘warming hiatus’) – and remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.” Surprising to many, during the last full year in office of ultra-green former President Barack Obama, NASA revealed a study proving the opposite of what climate change alarmists have been warning the world about – showing that more carbon dioxide in the air produced by pollutants is actually making vegetation flourish … not die off or shrivel away. “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years, largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25,” NASA reported in April 2016. “An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” Drowning alert downsized Photos of drowning polar bears clinging onto the last piece of floating sea ice are drawing less fearful compassion today and becoming more satirical as scientific evidence shows that beaches and islands are not disappearing due to rising sea levels – which have been greatly exaggerated. Bradley pointed to climate scientist Judith Curry, who admitted that manmade pollutants have little to do with sea-level rise, as decades before and after the 1980s have shown increases of just a few inches – and the rate has not been getting noticeably greater of late. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades,” Curry explained. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.” Former Vice President Al Gore – who has made millions as a climate alarmist after serving under former President Bill Clinton – has been one of the major proponents who has sold the world on the notion of rising sea levels. “The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore,” Bradley noted. “Sea levels could rise 20 feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth– a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.” Gore’s gross exaggerations didn’t stop in the sea, but extended to the skies. “In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a ‘point of no return,’” Bradley stressed. “In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated, ‘We have at most 10 years – not 10 years to decide upon action, but 10 years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.’” But for years, Gore has racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking event to scare environmentalists and gullible students into believing that his scare tactics are not based in profit, but in scientific fact. “Time is up on Gore’s ‘point of no return’ and Hansen’s ‘critical tipping point,’” Bradley continued. “But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions – as if they will suddenly be proven right.” Leaders across the globe championing climate change policies The world’s most prestigious universities, as well as the United Nations – which Trump has parted ways with on issues from climate change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are also behind the climate change movement, as the lead of the U.N.’s climate panel, Rajendra Pachauri, made a “scare-and-hide” prediction the first year of Obama’s second term. “While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet,” Bradley pointed out. “In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted ‘global disaster’ from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet. Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the U.N. claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away.” The former leader of the United Kingdom also aired his hysterical panic about climate change. “In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming,” the climate change cynic recalled. “But 50 days, six months, and eight years later, the Earth seems fine.” Trump not trumped by Dem climate alarmists One of the major issues brought up by Democrats at the last presidential election was that Trump would cause the end of the world by not casting billions of American tax dollars into climate change initiatives and projects around the world – an idea championed by Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II,” Bradley recounted. Republicans have been blamed with starting a war against the Earth itself. “World War III is well and truly underway,” the New Republic’s Bill McKibben wrote. “And we are losing.” Conservatives not on board with climate alarmists have been labeled as being much worse than mere polluters. “Those opposed to a new ‘war effort’ were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers,” Bradley explained. “Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that ‘a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.’ In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that ‘electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.’” Regardless, Trump won – to the chagrin of many ultra-environmentalist Democrats. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” Think Progress’ Joe Romm lamented. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.” This opinion was mirrored by others in the leftist media who complained about the president. “Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States, [and] we’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown,” Vox’s Brad Plumer warned. “The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption. Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve ‘missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.’ Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding ‘the destruction of organized human life.'” Bleak future to climate alarmists Curry complained before United States Congress that climate change has sounded off false alarms and compromised science. “In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’ the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem,” Curry declared before Congress in 2015. “This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.” Problems behind climate change science are becoming uncovered at an ever-increasing rate. “Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire,” Bradley contended. “In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the ‘Hollywoodization’ of their discipline. They complained about ‘a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data’ – to which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: ‘I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.’” Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp admitted that alarmists need to taper down their volume a few notches. “There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” Krupp voiced in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.” When all is said and done, it is argued that even though climate change apologetics might not longer be on the rise, it is here to say … at least for the foreseeable future. “If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted,” Bradley concluded. “Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners.” He recalled Sen. Tim Wirth’s (D-Col.) statement when the climate alarm originally sounded a few decades ago. “We have got to ride the global warming issue,” Wirth insisted. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Bradley commented on Wirth’s call to environmentalists. “’Right thing’ in terms of economic and environmental policy?” Bradley sarcastically posed. “That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.”
And yet not one publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. There is no debate about it anymore among the experts.