Another Phoney Baloney Nobel Prize Winner - but not with IPCC...

"Global warming, or climate change, has become one of the polarizing issues of our time. Many consider it the most serious threat to mankind, while others dismiss it as a natural fluctuation in our planet’s climate cycles that requires no corrective action.

What the debate means for ordinary folks is often confusion over what to believe. This confusion is entirely understandable, says Eric Chivian, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Harvard professor."

"Chivian was among a group of physicians who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for their efforts to prevent nuclear war. But as he noted at a New Jersey land conservation conference in March, it’s much harder to convince people to take action against climate change than to persuade them to stop nuclear war."
http://www.thedailyjournal.com/story/opinion/2015/07/29/byers-climate-change-debate-confuses-public/30831877/

But guess what... like Michael Mann he is not being truthful or at the very least not correcting an incorrect article. I wonder if he has a fake paper Nobel ,too...


The Nobel Peace Prize 1985 was awarded to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Looks Like Peter Gleick Has a New Gig

Back when he was a serious scientist fraudulently

obtained confidential information from Heartland Institute

Hotel.com

Example from Climategate Emails of How Climate Alarmists Change Data to Fit Hypothesis

HT Tom Nelson

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

From: Tom Wigley 
To: Phil Jones 

Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer 


Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.



Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS"