i agree with ML, follow the money; look at his source of "knowledge"

 

the are proffesional denial experts on any topic they get paid to deny eg the tobacco companies, the oil companies, wal-mart.

 

ML you really are low class and have no respect for yourself;

 

this is ML's source, he should forget following the money and follow a few of his own links and stop making a fool of himself;

 

"The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources.

 

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.^[13][37] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.^[37][38] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.^[37][39] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.^[40], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

The Institute's "Tea Party Toolbox" webpage, which includes The Patriot’s Toolbox,^[44] seeks to promote the Tea Party movement.^[45][46]

 

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.^[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."^[15]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.^[52] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.^[23] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.^[52][53][54] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.^[52]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,^[37] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.^[48] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.^[55] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."^[13]

February 2012 document misappropriation

In February 2012, environmentalist scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick, obtained internal Heartland Institute documents by deceptive means, and divulged them, together with an additional document that he later claimed to have received from an unknown source, to public websites.^[58] The documents contained the 2012 Heartland budget, a fundraising plan and board materials.^[59] The documents disclosed the names of a number of donors to the institute – including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, Microsoft, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.^[5][60] Some of the documents also contained details of payments to climate skeptics and financial support to skeptics' research programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and a pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.^[60] The documents also indicated that the institute planned to provide materials to teachers in the United States to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools.^[17][60] The documents also appeared to disclose Heartland's plans for "Operation Angry Badger", in which $612,000 was to be allocated for activities related to Wisconsin's recall elections.^[17] None of the documents were independently authenticated.^[61]

On February 22, 2012, Congressman Raúl Grijalva requested a House Committee on Natural Resources hearing to investigate whether alleged Heartland payments to Indur Goklany, a senior adviser to the Interior Department, violated Federal ethics rules. Greenpeace also requested an investigation into this allegation on the same date.^[68] Golklany told Politico he had previously cleared his activities with his department's ethics unit. On February 28, 2012, the Committee announced that it was planning to ignore Congressman Grijalva's request.^[69]

 

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.^[56]

 

 

Heartland Institute questions scientific opinion on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming might be beneficial if it did occur.^[19]

 

Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."^[14]

 

In 2013 the Institute falsely portrayed a translation of one of its documents on global warming by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a major shift towards skepticism by China's leaders.^[24][25]

 

On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”^[31]

 

The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."^[32]

The billboard reportedly "unleashed a social media-fed campaign, including a petition from the advocacy group Forecast the Facts calling on Heartland’s corporate backers to immediately pull their funding," and prompted Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to threaten to cancel his speech at the upcoming Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference.^[33] Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it.^{[nb 2]} The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding,^[34] the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it.^[35] Subsequent to their resignation, the staff of the former Heartland insurance project founded the R Street Institute.^[36]

The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources.

 

 

 

 

Why is the "climate" changing on Mars in parallel with Earths?

The climate is changing because the poles are shifting, proof is magnetic north has shifted...

This was all predicted years ago by people like Edgar Cayce...

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/earths-magnetic-pole-shifting-accelerates/

dude get some self-respect and look at your sources above.

The source of information is from NASA you moron...

your corrupt proffessional denier for hire is the source, the same people hired by tobacco companies paid to create doubt about negative health effect of smoking, paid by fuel companies to promote doubt about climate change;

 

they took some info out of context and refer to professional climate deniers, like the two referenced;

Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and Baliunas "was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry". ^[42]

Rather than showing quantitative data, they primarily categorised research by others into those supporting, and those not supporting, the MWP and the LIA as defined by themselves. Soon said "I was stating outright that I'm not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results". They used a very loose definition of climate anomaly, including any period of 50 years or more that was wet, dry, warm or cold. Though "mindful" that the MWP and LIA are both defined by temperature, "we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies were to be dissociated" from climatic conditions such as wetness and dryness, but wetness and dryness were undefined and only "referred to the standard usage in English." Their selection of a 50 year plus period excluded recent warming, which had occurred in two periods of 30 years in the 20th century, with the greatest warming in the late 20th century.^[20]

Initially, the scientists whose work was being disputed by Soon and Baliunas felt it was one of a series of sceptical papers that, in Mann's words, "couldn't get published in a reputable journal". In March he wrote to Phil Jones that "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted, the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want is to bring attention to the paper." Jones replied "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor", referring to de Freitas. At the time the second Soon et al. paper was publicised, Mann emailed Fred Pearce to say that it "was absurd, almost laughable (if it wasn't, as is transparently evident, being used as a policy–and politics–driven publicity stunt to support the dubious positions on climate change of some prominent American politicians)", and added that the paper made no attempt to find if the past warm temperatures it reported were contemporaneous or merely one-off scattered events.^[21]

 

Also, the additional sources of funding mentioned in the papers were apparently unrelated to the research presented in Soon and Baliunas 2003 and in Soon et al. 2003: both the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA stated that they had provided funds for work on solar variability, not for work related to proxy climate records as discussed in the papers, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it had not provided funds for the research.^[24] Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant AF49620-02-1-0194, deals with Theory and Observation of Stellar Magnetic Activity,^[43] and NASA grant NAG5-7635 studies variability of stars.^[44] When questioned during the 29 July 2003 Senate hearing, Soon said that the NOAA grant for Soon et al. was awarded to David Legates, and the papers, showing research into detailed patterns of local and regional climate variability, were directly relevant to his main goal of research on physical mechanisms of the sun-climate relationship. When asked if he had been "hired by or employed by or received grants from organizations that have taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions", he responded "I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any such organizations described in this question."^[45][36]

Connections between the paper's authors and oil industry groups have been well documented. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute.^[46] Soon has also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.^[47] Other contributors to Soon's research career include the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010, and coal and oil industry sources such as Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.^[48] Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."^[45]

Soon's co-authors Craig D Idso and Sherwood B Idso have also received industry funding. They have been linked to Western coal interests, and the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in 2000.^[49]

 

Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than last year, 3 degrees colder than normal

Anthony Watts / 1 day ago October 14, 2014

Meteorologist Mark Torregrossa writes on Michigan Live about the lingering effect of historic ice extent last winter in the Great Lakes and late ice melt this summer due to that extent:

Lakes Superior and Lake Michigan are currently six degrees colder than last year. If the water continues to remain colder than normal, it could have an impact on Michigan’s winter in several ways.

The average water temperature on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan is currently colder than both last year and the long-term average.Mark Torregrossa

Currently Lake Superior has an average surface water temperature of 47.6 degrees. Last year on this date Lake Superior was at 53.7 degrees. The long-term average water temperature on Lake Superior for October 11 is 51.1 degrees.

So Lake Superior is 6.1 degrees colder than this time last year, and 3.5 degrees colder than normal.

Lake Michigan has an average surface water temperature of 56.0 degrees, while last year at this time it was 62.1 degrees. The long-term average water temperature on Lake Michigan for October 11 is 58.4 degrees.

Lake Michigan is also 6.1 degrees colder than this time last year, and 2.4 degrees colder than average.

Lake Huron is 5 degrees colder than last year, and only 1.5 degrees colder than normal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/

Yeah?  Do you understand the concept of global?

Yep! Do you understand the concept of people telling you the ice caps will be gone in ten years and they can't get Friday's weather right?

Didn't watch the video, did you?