The problem is that climate dynamics is an inexact science and the definitions of "change" are both arbitrary and poorly expressed. Clearly the climate is constantly changing and extremes occur over both contemporary and geologic times. The question of anthropogenic mechanisms introducing catastrophic and irreversible changes in the ecosphere, in my mind, remains open. Unfortunately, to the power hungry politician that is irrelevant. The real value of the climate change argument is that it provides a platform for the acquisition and maintenance of political power. Sadly, scientists are as attracted to fame and power as any one else and many tend to be liberal anyway. As a result they are easily seduced by the opportunity to use their status as "authorities" to support agendas that are less than scientifically legitimate.

Hi ProfChuck ,
If a climate is a defined 30 year average of weather events,temps ,precipitation , jet streams and so on... How often can a climate change? and when can it be determined that a change has occured?

Hi Chad,
Agreed , It is called conflict of interest.

A free society of individuals values reality and truth more than any other kind of society. When those being paid to do their work are paid by any entity other than the free market the ideas and theories will coincide with those who pay for the product rather than reallity. If you must sell your work in the free market you must appeal to the critical thinkers not those who have something to gain from using your work to control others. There should be no connection between the government (those authorized to use force) and any others who might wish to profit from their mistaken ideas or individuals will find themselves forced into decisions that weaken rather than strengthen their intelligence and use of the mind.

Once again the difference between climate science and climate politics is made clear. Climate change makes a much better political tool than it does good science.

unfortunately there are very few who follow the position that you have taken. maybe they should read Rand! good for you!

Thanks DrZ ,
The Immoral Statists have to go. Expose the deciet

I hate to tell you this, but what made me consider to quit supporting the government as a contractor was that I discovered we were lying to our client. What convinced me my decision to quit was right was when I realized the customer wanted us to lie to support their agenda.

Yes the CircuitGuy attached articles are to discredit the whistleblower. The agenda that CG has swallowed hook line and sinker is evident from this headline complete with label:
AS THE PLANET WARMS, DOUBTERS LAUNCH A NEW ATTACK ON A FAMOUS CLIMATE CHANGE STUDY
washington times (gag)

No points for you. Quotes from the biggest fake news sources have less sway than the statements of the whistleblower who was part of the NASA/NOAA team. Of course the researchers are going to say they did nothing wrong, but why should we accept their claims, since they're the ones most likely to have manipulated the data?

Read a report the other day that stated it was a measurement fight between two scientist...that's why we first see the cold in monthly reports then the revised version showing warming a few days later. Ben and others at suspicious observers archive their reports.
Plus, that fight may have included all the weather stations being relocated to paved areas in the cities; now, if you want to measure the effects of cities in that local environmental temperature then good but those measurements do not reflect the norm.
Both arguments, in my opinion, do not pass muster...face it, they screwed your pooch!

And we are surprised by that? Investigate the scientist and when this is shown to be true, fire him/her. That is one small step to putting a stop to this garbage.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have been replaced Democrat Party fawning stooges.
No, not The Three Stooges: They did honest work. .

will someone tell me how much of the published "information(?)" that comes out of the mouths of government employees is not false. I am sure that this whistle blow is one of those who speaks the truth. and as circuit guy ask where are the usa newspapers? protect "0"

Where are those news outlets? Well looking for or creating fake news, of course.
https://youtu.be/R48KMbOOR-A

What a pathetic hypocritical existence some PC edict re-enforcers, oops, I mean, oooweee "scientific researchers" have.
It's like being paid to keep proving that the earth is the center of the universe.
Theoretically speaking, had there been a President $hillary, Loretta Lynch would be placing any free-thinking Galileos under house arrest. . .

What really boggles my mind is the fawning approach the main-stream media takes. They admit that Democrats would love to go the way of Russia and allow only State-run media outlets. Are they just trying to do the whole kiss-up thing thinking that they will be first in line to be controlled by government?

It used to be that the media's primary purpose was to hold the government accountable and criticize them when they proposed legislation that curtailed civil liberties. Now they are one of the most egregious violators of civil liberties as they stalk peoples' houses, release private information, engage in political targeting, and fail to give away their "sources" for criminal investigations.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline." This is the UEA-CRU scandal all over again.

"Researchers say"as their hands are reaching out for the next bogus study grant.

New York Times headline:
"No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say"

I no longer trust any "real coverage" by the mainstream media, even if their writing style is more to my liking.

Where is the NYT and Washington Post? If they're not writing about it, maybe it's a conspiracy, and the the truth is exactly what we wish it were. Maybe Taco Bell is good for me, too, and my grandparents are watching over me from heaven along with a loving God. If we start from the desires, I'm sure we can find some evidence.

Unfortunately, it's not true.

NYT Reporting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/sc...
Washingon Post Reporting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...
The same AP story printed in those outlets:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...

You can learn a lot more from reading this real coverage of it, which doesn't have sentences like "Now get ready to be shocked."

The interesting thing about Julie Kelly's commentary is she takes it as an unstated assumption that everyone starts with a desired answer and cheers evidence that supports it gets unnerved by evidence opposed to it. It's like she cannot even conceive of just seeking the truth and purposely blinding data to avoid even subconscious bias. As Asimov said, The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'. People who start from a position of wishful thinking will never experience that.