What caused this Climate skepticism uptick ?

[polarbear]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/celebrities-beg-electors-to-be-heroes-and-vote-against-trump/
Gee why not go totally retard and just let them decide who is going to be the next president.
Your response made it quite clear that they and the likes of the NYT do the thinking for you.

The American PEOPLE selected Hillary Clinton by a large margin. The success of Trump with the Electoral college is due entirely to the influence of winner-take-all states.. state's rights. Trump has been made the president of the American people by the power of a collection of abstract entities.

That popular vote margin does not mean a whole lot in a country that has ~ 12 million illegal immigrants and has states that do not require people who show up to vote to produce proof of US citizenship.
In February 2016, California officials announced that more than 600,000 undocumented people were granted driver's licenses in 2015
Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the law in October 2013 to give a legal document to the 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California alone -- most from Latin America and particularly neighboring Mexico.
That renewed interest in another California law, the "New Motor Voter Act," which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented people to obtain driver's licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining a driver's license, sparked fears that California was allowing undocumented people to vote.

Every time that came up in all the years before the democrats screamed "voter suppression" because they always did rely on to harvest all these phony votes

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.

When did Trump say he would dismantle the EPA?

 

[polarbear]

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.

When did Trump say he would dismantle the EPA?

I`m not sure. He said it more than once and also made a lot of other remarks which made it pretty clear where he stood regarding environmental regulations that are strangling the economy and job growth.
Every time he mentioned it at one of his rallies the huge crowds cheered and that sent shivers up the spines of AGW freaks around the world. Especially in the European press they were freaking out even more than MSNBC or CNN here. "Der Spiegel" the German equivalent of the NYT topped them all. I could not stop laughing, Are you familiar with the German term Schadenfreude...it`s something you have when you see your worst enemy fall into a cow manure pit...or something like this:

(I am not a misogynist...but these were a bunch of ultra-feminists shooting water melons at male mannequins to deal with their frustrations)

 

[Old Rocks]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

The electoral collage has important reference even today. It gives proportional representation to the rest of the US and stops city centered mob rule. The electoral college stops the population centers,who like to vote themselves the benefits of the labor of others, from enslaving the rest of us.

So you can do the same to them.

lol...

Cities are consumption centers... they consume... they produce very little and can not self sustain like the rest of us... tell me again what your motives are?

Crap, Silly Billy, your IQ does not even reach room temperature level. The rural areas provide us with the agricultural products we need. We supply them with the roads and infrastructure they need for a decent life. It is the taxes that we in the city that have the good jobs and manufacture nearly everything used in the rural areas pay that supplied them with electricity. No private company would have put the lines in, so the REA did. It is a two way street, we need each other, but today the rural areas are far more dependent on the cities than the cities are on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

The best thing that could happen is if this asymmetric funding of AGW "research" which amounts to nothing more than politically motivated propaganda at the tax payer`s expense is countered with some real research.
Starting with the release of the raw data Hansen, Mann etc refuse to disclose.
That may not even cost the US taxpayer anything because all these people would be free to offer their findings without having to fear that their lives and careers will be trashed in retaliation by those who want to silence them:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
• • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
  • Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
  • Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
  • Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
• 
  
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
• These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  • Indur M. Goklany science and technology policy analyst for the United States
  • • Department of the Interior[156][157][158]
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [159][160]
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[161][162]
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[163][164]
• • 
    This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.
    • August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[165]
    • Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[166]
    • Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[167][168]
    • William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[169][170]
    • Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[171][172][173]
    • Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[174]
    • Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[166][175]

I, too, question the accuracy of the predictions. After all, Dr. Hansen's predictions for the opening of the Northwest Passage was for the latter half of the 21st century. And it opened in 2007. And, last summer, a very large luxury cruise ship made the passage.
September 12, 2016
Share

Melting Ice Allows Northwest Passage Cruise — But At What Cost?

 

[ding]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

The electoral collage has important reference even today. It gives proportional representation to the rest of the US and stops city centered mob rule. The electoral college stops the population centers,who like to vote themselves the benefits of the labor of others, from enslaving the rest of us.

So you can do the same to them.

lol...

Cities are consumption centers... they consume... they produce very little and can not self sustain like the rest of us... tell me again what your motives are?

Crap, Silly Billy, your IQ does not even reach room temperature level. The rural areas provide us with the agricultural products we need. We supply them with the roads and infrastructure they need for a decent life. It is the taxes that we in the city that have the good jobs and manufacture nearly everything used in the rural areas pay that supplied them with electricity. No private company would have put the lines in, so the REA did. It is a two way street, we need each other, but today the rural areas are far more dependent on the cities than the cities are on them.

If there were ever a country wide brown out that lasted for three weeks I bet you would find out you were wrong. They'd be eating each other in the cities.

 

[Old Rocks]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.
.

Ah, so basically YOU want to decide who is an idiot.

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

 

[ding]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.
.

Ah, so basically YOU want to decide who is an idiot.

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

 

[polarbear]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

The best thing that could happen is if this asymmetric funding of AGW "research" which amounts to nothing more than politically motivated propaganda at the tax payer`s expense is countered with some real research.
Starting with the release of the raw data Hansen, Mann etc refuse to disclose.
That may not even cost the US taxpayer anything because all these people would be free to offer their findings without having to fear that their lives and careers will be trashed in retaliation by those who want to silence them:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
• • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
  • Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
  • Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
  • Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
• 
  
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
• These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  • Indur M. Goklany science and technology policy analyst for the United States
  • • Department of the Interior[156][157][158]
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [159][160]
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[161][162]
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[163][164]
• • 
    This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.
    • August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[165]
    • Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[166]
    • Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[167][168]
    • William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[169][170]
    • Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[171][172][173]
    • Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[174]
    • Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[166][175]

I, too, question the accuracy of the predictions. After all, Dr. Hansen's predictions for the opening of the Northwest Passage was for the latter half of the 21st century. And it opened in 2007. And, last summer, a very large luxury cruise ship made the passage.
September 12, 2016
Share

Melting Ice Allows Northwest Passage Cruise — But At What Cost?

So what ??? Here is where they sailed:

All the way along the Alaska coast round the northern tip to Herschel Island the ship lane has been kept open by icebreakers for as long as possible so that supplies and holiday cruise ships can get into Johansen Bay.
Rear Admiral John Franklin sailed from England up the Greenland coast and discovered "Smoking Hills" in 1826. So we know that stretch was already open way back in 1826.
And we also know that Vice Admiral George Nares sailed the HMS Alert right up to where CFS Alert is now. That`s way closer to the pole than this dopey cruise ship ever got:

They were just barely inside the arctic circle and never closer than ~ 2000 nautical miles from the North pole during the summer with much fanfare by the AGW propaganda crew who want to use that cruise as some sort of proof for their cause.
While Nares sailed the HMS Alert without the aid of any icebreakers to within just 450 miles of the North Pole way back in 1875.
I also posted pictures here years ago how later expeditions sailed right up the Nares Straight and went duck hunting in Fort Conger where they also spent the Winter.
In 1881 Lt Adolphus Greely sailed the Proteus to where Fort Conger is located
Proteus arrived without problems at Lady Franklin Bay by August 11,[7] dropped off men and provisions, and left. In the following months, Lt. James Booth Lockwood and Sgt. David Legge Brainard achieved a new "farthest north" record at 83°24′N 40°46′W,[8] off the north coast of Greenland. Unbeknownst to Greely, the summer had been extraordinarily warm, which led to an underestimation of the difficulties which their relief expeditions would face in reaching Lady Franklin Bay in subsequent years.

And that`s one of the pictures the Greely expedition brought back from Fort Conger.

Strange why none of your buddies don`t want to know anything about this or all the huge tree stumps that you can find all over the area on both sides of the Nares Straight when you dig into the sand.

There were forests with huge trees all over this area this far north and I have a hard time believing that aside from us guys who have been stationed up there at CFS Alert nobody else knows about it.
I bet Michael Mann knows about these trees but will never admit that he does.

 

[Old Rocks]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215113243.htm

The northernmost mummified forest ever found in Canada is revealing how plants struggled to endure a long-ago global cooling.


Researchers believe the trees -- buried by a landslide and exquisitely preserved 2 to 8 million years ago -- will help them predict how today's Arctic will respond to global warming.

They also suspect that many more mummified forests could emerge across North America as Arctic ice continues to melt. As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- and actually boost global warming.

Joel Barker, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center and the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University and leader of the team that is analyzing the remains, will describe early results at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Dec. 17.

Over the summer of 2010, the researchers retrieved samples from broken tree trunks, branches, roots, and even leaves -- all perfectly preserved -- from Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada.

"Mummified forests aren't so uncommon, but what makes this one unique is that it's so far north. When the climate began to cool 11 million years ago, these plants would have been the first to feel the effects," Barker said. "And because the trees' organic material is preserved, we can get a high-resolution view of how quickly the climate changed and how the plants responded to that change."

Barker found the deposit in 2009, when he was camping on Ellesmere Island for an unrelated research project. He followed a tip from a national park warden, who had noticed some wood sticking out of the mud next to a melting glacier. This summer, he returned with colleagues for a detailed study of the area.

Analysis of the remains has only just begun, but will include chemical and DNA testing.

I am quite sure that Dr. Mann, as well as Dr. Alley are quite cognizant of the wood on Ellsmere Island.

 

[ding]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215113243.htm

The northernmost mummified forest ever found in Canada is revealing how plants struggled to endure a long-ago global cooling.


Researchers believe the trees -- buried by a landslide and exquisitely preserved 2 to 8 million years ago -- will help them predict how today's Arctic will respond to global warming.

They also suspect that many more mummified forests could emerge across North America as Arctic ice continues to melt. As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- and actually boost global warming.

Joel Barker, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center and the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University and leader of the team that is analyzing the remains, will describe early results at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Dec. 17.

Over the summer of 2010, the researchers retrieved samples from broken tree trunks, branches, roots, and even leaves -- all perfectly preserved -- from Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada.

"Mummified forests aren't so uncommon, but what makes this one unique is that it's so far north. When the climate began to cool 11 million years ago, these plants would have been the first to feel the effects," Barker said. "And because the trees' organic material is preserved, we can get a high-resolution view of how quickly the climate changed and how the plants responded to that change."

Barker found the deposit in 2009, when he was camping on Ellesmere Island for an unrelated research project. He followed a tip from a national park warden, who had noticed some wood sticking out of the mud next to a melting glacier. This summer, he returned with colleagues for a detailed study of the area.

Analysis of the remains has only just begun, but will include chemical and DNA testing.

I am quite sure that Dr. Mann, as well as Dr. Alley are quite cognizant of the wood on Ellsmere Island.

What global warming? Oh... you mean the interglacial period we are in, right.

 

[Old Rocks]

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

For the past 100 years, the rate of change is 10 times that of the glacial to interglacial warm ups. And that change is accelerating, as these real scientists are pointing out.

 

[ding]

Their models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.
.

Ah, so basically YOU want to decide who is an idiot.

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Their models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

Welcome to reality america. Ya can just go find your own "reality" on any topic or concern at all. The other guy's are always "fake".

 

[ding]

Their models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

Welcome to reality america. Ya can just go find your own "reality" on any topic or concern at all. The other guy's are always "fake".

That was their model projections and data, lol.

 

[ding]

Ah, so basically YOU want to decide who is an idiot.

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Their models are wrong.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

Fig. 2. Frequency histogram of total (reflected solar plus emitted infrared)feedback parameters computed from all possible 5 year periods in transient forcing experiments in 18 climate models tracked by the IPCC, versus the same calculation from Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.

Welcome to reality america. Ya can just go find your own "reality" on any topic or concern at all. The other guy's are always "fake".

That was their model projections and data, lol.

I think we all know what the consensus is in the scientific community, spin on my son. Unto each his own political perceptual reality.

 

[therightsideofhistory]

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

same. but it's difficult to do so when one side is using facts to build an argument and the other side uses something made up

 

[Fenton Lum]

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

What a liar you are, Dingleberry. You see, this incoming admin has already tried to use political means testing to create fear in the scientists that work in the Energy Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition team has circulated an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.

In question after question, the document peppers Energy Department managers with pointed queries about climate science research, clean energy programs and the employees who work for those programs. More broadly, the questionnaire hints at a significant shift of emphasis at the agency toward nuclear power, and a push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department’s laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science.

Energy Department employees, who shared the questionnaire with The New York Times and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, described the questionnaire as worrying. Mr. Trump has just tapped Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma and a climate change denialist, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and the president-elect has made it clear he intends to roll back eight years of regulatory efforts by President Obama that aimed to control planet-warming emissions.

Lysenkoism at it's worse. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.

If only everyone in the world would think like you do, right?

Be a page outta your book, wouldn't it.

Not at all. I love diversity of thought. That's how we arrive at objective truth. I'm not the one saying the matter is settled.

What a lovely improvement.