Posts Tagged ‘Sound Science’

Real Climate Science the IPCC Doesn’t Want You to See

by Paul Driessen on Thursday, September 19th, 2013

This is article 263 of 336 in the topic Global Warming

Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC – facts versus gloom-and-doom assertions.

Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.

Ignoring these facts, President Obama continues to insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and rising seas that “threaten” coastal communities. With Congress refusing to enact job-killing taxes on hydrocarbon energy and CO2, his Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to unleash more job-killing regulations on fossil fuel use, amid an economy that is already turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs and welfare.

America and the world desperately need some sound science and common sense on climate change.

Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.

The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.

The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).

Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations and continued funding on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out – and we do have that long overdue debate.

Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, and even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or very hot temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot

by Michelle Malkin on Friday, May 25th, 2012

This is article 10 of 23 in the topic White House Advisors/Czars

Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

The embattled chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission resigned this week. It’s a victory for Republican oversight on Capitol Hill, women and sound science. But it’s also a lesson in the futility of Bush-era bipartisanship. When you cut deals with bullies, it’s a timeless and bitter recipe for more bullying.

Gregory Jaczko served as appropriations director and science policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., before joining the NRC in 2005. The anti-nuclear advocate was sworn in by his brass-knuckled boss and protector, Reid, who pressured the Bush administration to appoint him as a condition for moving through any other NRC nominations.

The GOP rolled. Reid and Jaczko rampaged. And President Obama — doing the thing he does best — made matters abysmally worse.

Reid connived to install Jaczko at the NRC to carry on their shared crusade against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nye County, Nev. Despite assurances that he would recuse himself, Jaczko proceeded to meddle aggressively in the issue. After the Obama administration named Jaczko chairman of the safety panel in 2009, all hell broke loose — and then some.

Out of fear that researchers would confirm positive safety data, Jaczko ordered NRC staff to halt a technical evaluation of Yucca Mountain. Then he used the lack of data to order a complete work stoppage on the long-obstructed project. Last summer, the NRC inspector general determined that Jaczko “strategically withheld” information from the rest of the panel, manipulated agendas and “was not forthcoming about his intent” to shut down Yucca by any means necessary.

He kept the panel in the dark on other matters, too. After the Fukushima meltdown in Japan, Jaczko ordered his staff to hoard safety findings and keep them from other commissioners while he made unilateral policy decisions against their will.

In the course of his investigation, the NRC inspector general heard from numerous commission staffers about Jaczko’s “unprofessional behavior” and outburst of anger that created an “intimidating workplace environment.” The report said Jaczko told investigators he “regretted” his temper tantrums. (Full report PDF here.)

Last fall, the entire commission sent an extraordinary letter to the White House expressing “grave concerns” about Jaczko the Jerk’s continued boorishness. “We believe that his actions and behavior are causing serious damage to this institution and are creating a chilled work environment at the NRC,” wrote NRC commissioners Kristine L. Svinicki (Republican), George Apostolakis (Democrat), William D. Magwood IV (Democrat) and William C. Ostendorff (Republican). Commission staff detailed how Jaczko’s “shaking angry” rage-fests caused at least one woman to cry and prompted Svinicki to have a staffer accompany her whenever she was in Jaczko’s presence.

As if being a data doctor, control freak and chauvinist pig weren’t enough, Jaczko added liar to his resume. Two weeks ago, Jaczko testified before Congress that he was unaware of any incidents in which he was accused of intimidating NRC staff. But internal GOP sources at NRC told Capitol Hill oversight staff that Jaczko personally had apologized to three female employees.

Where were all the Democratic femme-a-gogues who have spent the entire year braying about the GOP War on Women? Defending Reid’s sexist crony, of course. Democratic California Sen.

Click to continue reading “Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot”
Go straight to Post

Ass Extinction

by Larry Wilke on Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

This is article 5 of 13 in the topic Doomsday Theories

Well, you may be surprised to read this but they are at it again.. Some of the vaunted liberal “scientists” are making their usual predictions based upon nothingness.. The progressive pattern reveals the same hysteria-driven drivel that is only taken “seriously” at San Francisco socialist soirees and within the walls of Congress.. By the way, those are the only ones who are listening and when the first group begins puling to the second group, all of our wallets become a little lighter..

If it isn’t another “Ice Age”, it is “Globaloney Warming”. If it isn’t the “Population Explosion” it is the “World-Wide Famine”.. The estrogen levels of the liberals has to be about as high as their IQ’s, this is why they always resort to such sophistry which is based upon the same type of sound “science” that all of their other previous predictions have been scrupulously scripted from..

Yahoo news reports (hopefully tongue in cheek) that “Mankind may have unleashed the sixth known mass extinction in Earth’s history..” We can’t necessarily blame Yahoo for this as this frightening scenario has come from “the science journal Nature..” When dealing with the liberals and their histrionics, there should be some panel assembled to verify and justify their use of the term “science”. Like every other word that drips from the mealy mouth of a liberal, the word is cheapened by their use, overuse and abuse of it..

The indoctrination for the uninitiated begins early on in the article. “Over the past 540 million years, five mega-wipeouts of species have occurred through naturally-induced events..” Please note the use of the liberal “scientific” term, “mega-wipeouts”.. The important point to remember here is that these have “occurred through naturally-induced events..” Who can see the direction that this is going, “left” maybe?

“But the new threat is man-made, inflicted by habitation loss, over-hunting, over-fishing, the spread of germs and viruses and introduced species and by climate change caused by fossil-fuel greenhouse gases, says the study..” Shall we delve into this?

OF COURSE this is “man-made”, how else can all of the liberal parallel phantasms be brought into play? “Habitation loss” needs more environmental protection, “over-hunting” and “over-fishing” needs the attention of the animal rights lunatics. The liberals themselves are personally responsible for a number of “germs and viruses” that have certainly plagued mankind since the sixties, but since mankind is the “victim” and not the “blind albino crotch tick”, no harm no foul.. According to the “scientists”, “climate change” (Globaloney Warming 2.0..) caused by greenhouse gases HAS to be the real “threat”.. The liberal’s biggest push, with all of its “green jobs” and its “enviro-friendly” fuels, is directly related to the “big scare” surrounding “greenhouse gases”..

“Paleobiologists at the University of Berkeley looked at the state of biodiversity..” Hold it right there, bub.. “Biodiversity” is a liberal scam founded in the liberal scam of “diversity”. Using the liberal “definitional inversion” chart, “diversity”, regardless of where it is incorporated by the liberals, is actually “exclusion” based upon a number of theories. (Example: the “diversity” of quotas is the “exclusion” of the more qualified.) It is nothing more than their fascism fomented by fiction.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Call me FORMER Senator Barbara Boxer

by Martha Montelongo on Monday, October 25th, 2010

This is article 77 of 336 in the topic Global Warming

Just don’t call me Ma’am or suggest we need honest, accurate climate science
Who can forget California Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer’s put-down of Brigadier General Michael Walsh, during a June 2009 committee hearing? When he addressed her as “Ma’am,” in answering a question about the New Orleans levee system, she petulantly interrupted:  “Could you say Senator, instead of Ma’am?  I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it.”

“Ma’am” is a term of respect given by military personnel to superior female officers. So she’s right. She didn’t deserve it. Her behavior was once again disrespectful, arrogant, condescending – and a disgrace to a Congress whose public esteem is deservedly at a record low.

As Californians head to the polls November 2, they should ponder very carefully whether they really want, and can really afford, another six years of Barbara Boxer.

The Golden State’s junior senator has long been dismissive of anyone who dares to disagree with her, no matter what experience, expertise or evidence they might bring to a Senate proceeding. She epitomizes the overbearing attitude of the power elite, the ruling class that thinks it knows more than we do, is better than us, and is in Washington not to serve or represent us, but to rule us.

In 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, stressing the need for sound science and above-reproach analysis in making laws and public policies. He offered not his well-deserved reputation as an author and filmmaker – but his expertise as a Harvard-educated physician and medical researcher.

Dr. Crichton expressed his growing concern that science is being politicized, misused and abused to advance an unproven global warming hypothesis, and justify policies that will adversely affect our energy supplies, jobs, living standards and liberties. Those policies will also give Washington politicians and bureaucrats unprecedented power and control over our lives.

Science, he emphasized, relies on “independent verification.” A scientific hypothesis or assertion “is valid and merits acceptance only if it can be independently verified.” The Food and Drug Administration, he noted, has strict rules governing the conduct of drug research, to ensure honesty and integrity, and protect the public’s health and welfare. The gold standard is randomized double-blind studies that involve four separate teams:  one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, an third assesses its effects, and a fourth analyzes the results.

“The teams do not know each other, he observed, “and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results.” Deviate from those rules, and your $100-million study will be declared null and void. But in climate “research,” every one of these rules is routinely and deliberately violated, to further an agenda that will affect, not just a company or small group of patients, but every single American business, citizen and community.

In climate science, Dr. Crichton pointed out, “it is permissible for raw data to be modified by many hands.  Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

When Bad Science Makes Bad Laws

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

This is article 10 of 79 in the topic EPA

You may have noticed that the mainstream media has virtually dropped “global warming” as a topic worth reporting. That can be traced to “Climategate”, the November 2009 leak of emails that revealed the global hoax perpetrated on us by a small group of scientists who had been generating false information about the non-event that is climate.

Billions of dollars have been wasted on “research” about what amounts to the greatest fraud in the modern era. It is essential to bear in mind that the baseless claim of Earth burning up has been created in the United Nations Environmental Program and is supported by millions of dollars in propaganda from leading environmental organizations.

The public has become increasingly reluctant to be stampeded by specious scientific claims and with good reason; the science cited has often been false. Yet what we saw with global warming is repeating itself, this time with the plastics additive bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used to harden plastic and has been in wide consumer use for more than half a century. It is used to improve the safety and reliability of everything from DVDs and consumer electronics to sports safety equipment and shatterproof bottles.

BPA is among the most tested chemicals in history and not a single study has ever shown any harm to humans under normal consumer use and exposure. Yet junk scientists have generated enough false or misleading data to prompt lawmakers and regulators to propose and pass bad laws based on this bad science.

A current case in point is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who is trying to impose a ban on BPA in applications involving contact with food. The chemical is widely used in the epoxy that lines food cans to improve safety by helping prevent food borne illness, as well as some baby bottles. The problem is her political agenda isn’t supported by sound science. Furthermore, there is no replacement for BPA in can linings and whatever is eventually used will be far less tested for safety, thereby increasing health risks for consumers.

Political pressure has led to BPA ban efforts in New York, Massachusetts and California. Several other states and municipalities have already enacted such bans, all of which were passed on the basis of politics rather than science.

The claim is that BPA poses a health threat, particularly to infants and children up to the age of three. Voting for anything that allegedly “protects” children may be good politics, but in the case of BPA, it is bad science and, worse, risky to human health and bad for the economy when you consider how many containers rely on this chemical to ensure their contents do not spoil.

This issue has been raised in Europe as well and scientists on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated more than 800 studies on the topic, including one that was the basis for a partial BPA ban in Denmark.

Click to continue reading “When Bad Science Makes Bad Laws”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin