A study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources. In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
Retired climatologist Prof. Werner Kirstein: CO2 is “a harmless gas.” "When I go back and look at history, there’s absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.” IPCC is about marketing. The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” “Today you do not find scientists on the IPCC, instead you have political scientists.”
"Al Gore has come into you fellas business, Charlie Munger said. "He has made $3 or $400 million in your business. And he's not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he coaxed through Harvard with a gentleman's C. But he had one obsessive idea that global warming was a terrible thing and he would protect the world from it," he explained. [Note: Gentleman's C is defined by Urban Dictionary as "A grade given to a student (traditionally with wealthy parents) instead of a failing grade."]
Asked whether CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry told CNBC's "Squawk Box": "No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in." "The fact is this shouldn't be a debate about, 'Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?' Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?" he said.
'Only a little more than a year ago that climate scientists and environmentalists were viciously attacking the Paris agreement itself. The goals were too low to make a difference. There was nothing binding any of the signatories to live up to their promises, and no enforcement mechanism if they didn't. It just kicked the can down the road...Kevin Anderson, a climate-change professor at the University of Manchester told the London Independent that the Paris deal was "worse than inept" and that it "risks locking in failure." Friends of the Earth International labeled it "a sham of a deal" that will "fail to deliver." "Politicians say it is a fair and ambitious deal," the group's Dipti Bhatnagar said, "yet it is the complete opposite. People are being deceived." New Internationalist magazine said it was "a disaster for the world's most vulnerable people. " Physicist Mark Buchanan, writing in Bloomberg View, called the Paris agreement an "abject failure."