I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.
Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.
Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.
Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.
Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.
Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience.
Are you with me so far?Matt Ridley
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert
By Donna Laframboise
The book elucidates how the panel’s much-vaunted “peer review” amounts to a “circular, incestuous process. Scientists make decisions as journal editors about what qualifies as peer-reviewed literature. They then cite the same papers they themselves played midwife to while serving as IPCC authors.” IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri�s claim that all the “Climate Bible’s” science is peer reviewed is, in any case, bunk. With a body of volunteers, Ms. Laframboise went through the 2007 report and found that more than 5,000 references - over a third - were from less-than-reliable sources. The most egregious such “grey” reference led to the claim that the Himalayan glaciers were to disappear by 2035. This terrifying assertion was traced back to the top of a non-expert’s head.more
Thursday, October 13, 2011
read more here
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) released a report on the amount of money that has been spent in the fight over Transcanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline, which would run 1,700 miles from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, is opposed by environmentalists.
Unfortunately, CRP’s report portrays the fight as a battle between “Big Oil” and poor little environmental activist groups. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
The report quotes Eddie Scher, the senior communications strategist for the Sierra Club. Scher complains that environmental groups can’t compete with the “literally unlimited resources” of energy companies.
“There’s no question we’re up against big numbers of campaign dollars,” he said. “We’re up against the cream of the crop when it comes to K Street lobbyists. But we believe even well-financed insanity is trumped by democracy.”
But the Sierra Club - like other major environmental groups - is by no means poor. At the end of 2009, it had more than $170 million in assets between its activist wing and its education foundation. The Nature Conservancy ended last year with $5.65 billion in assets, after taking in $210.5 million in revenue. The World Wildlife Fund had $377.5 million in assets as of June 2010, after scraping together $177.7 million for the fiscal year. And the National Audubon Society had $305.9 million stashed away at the end of last year. The Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and almost every other national “green” group you’ve ever heard of are similarly “impoverished.”
And then there are the foundations - dozens if not hundreds of them - that finance environmental activism. Among their benefactors: the Energy Foundation ($68.6 million in assets), the Joyce Foundation ($773.6 million), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($729 million), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ($6.8 billion), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($5.7 billion), and Heinz Endowments ($1.2 billion).
Scher’s Sierra Club might not spend as much money on lobbying as energy companies do, but that’s by choice. The part of the Sierra Club that is organized under the 501(c)(4) section of the tax code - in other words, the part of the organization that isn’t limited by lobbying restrictions - had nearly $49 million in assets at its disposal at the end of 2009. According to its 2009 tax return, the group spent about $4.9 million on “lobbying and political expenditures.” Only $480,000 of that money was spent at the federal level. The other $4.4 million was spent lobbying at the state level or on political activities like advertisements.
But that’s because the Sierra Club has made a strategic decision to focus more on litigation than on lobbying. The group files, on average, one lawsuit per week.
Other groups with as much financial might, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, make similar tactical decisions about litigation, lobbying, and other activities. In fact, litigation involves more bullying than lobbying does. There are few things worse in life than dealing with lawsuits.
It’s time for the people at these well-heeled environmental groups to stop whining about how they “can’t compete” with energy companies.
Monday, October 10, 2011
"My feeling was that saving human lives was more important than saving a percentage of shrimp and crab in Lake Pontchartrain," Towers told the Times. "I told my staff at the time that this judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a little dramatic."
read more here
Friday, October 7, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations. HERE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability. Her questions have insinuated that two former employees of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had suffered previous heart attacks.) This woman has similarly attacked other people and organizations that express views on climate change that she disagrees with. Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to the effort.
Wood closes with the following text:
The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.
The hardball approach of his defenders is in large part a reflex of this loss of prestige and authority. The proponents of AGW, however, have chosen a very foolish tactic. Bullying skeptics and sneering at those who raise questions is no way to regain public trust.
The sharp practices of the warmists also damage the tenor of academic, scientific, and public debate. Frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, mobbing are not the flying buttresses of modern science. They are the rot that undermines the intellectual authority of science. Can you trust anything said by someone who engages in such tactics?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The lead author of the IPCC report turns out to be Sven Teske, a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, who the IPCC does not identify as such in either the report or its media releases. Mr. Teske is also the author of much of the Greenpeace material on which the IPCC report is based, in effect making him a peer reviewer of the validity of his own material.NP
Friday, May 20, 2011
By James Taylor, Forbes
Three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar and start talking global warming with a dozen people who have no formal education in climate science. Sound like the beginning of a bad joke? Actually, it’s not. It’s what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would have us believe is an expert, objective, scientifically authoritative panel qualified to produce its latest report, America’s Climate Choices.
America’s Climate Choices asserts that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change that poses significant risks to human welfare and the environment. The report asserts we need to act now to fend off future harms.
Environmental activist groups and their media allies have had a field day claiming America�s Climate Choices is an unquestionably objective and expert report providing irrefutable proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis.
USA Today, for example, claimed the report was authored by “the nation�s pre-eminent scientific advisory group” and said the report “leave[s] the deniers in the same position as the ‘birthers’” who challenge President Obama’s reported birthplace.
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post referred to the report as “the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group” and says “climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
These are very strong assertions. Let’s see if the facts back them up.
Only 23 people served on the panel. This is hardly sufficient to form a �scientific consensus.�
Of the 23 panelists, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science. That’s less than 22%.
Five of the 23 panelists are or were staffers for environmental activist organizations. That means there are as many professional environmental activists on the panel as there are persons with climate-related science degrees.
Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 made statements claiming global warming is a human induced problem and/or we need to take action to reduce carbon dioxide restrictions. That means 83% of the panel was clearly and obviously biased before being selected.
Two of the panelists are or were politicians.
One of the panelists was appointed by the Clinton administration as general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency.
To claim that a report from such a small panel, comprised primarily of non-climate scientists and environmental activists, is objective and scientifically authoritative is a joke. The fact that 19 of the 23 panelists were clearly biased before even writing the report makes the report an even bigger joke. The only thing missing from such an “expert” and “objective” panel is the presence of Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.”
When environmental activists lament the fact that public opinion has turned so forcefully against global warming alarmism, they need only look in the mirror to find the answer. You can’t trot out staffers from Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and other environmental activist groups and claim this is authoritative, objective science. And if you are going to issue a global warming report and claim it is from impeccably qualified scientific sources, at least a quarter of the report’s authors should be climate scientists.
Environmental activists and their media allies repeatedly point out that America’s Climate Choices is a National Academy of Sciences publication. Rather than provide credibility for the panel of activists and non-climate scientists, the involvement of NAS merely illustrates how far away from quality, objective science NAS has travelled when the topic is a political one as well as scientific one. The fact that NAS chose to publish the report in no way changes the fact that the report was written by a very small panel of environmental activists and non-climate scientists. All the Washington Post and USA Today editorials in the world cannot change the fact that the NAS panel is about as close to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on climate science as Donald Trump is to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on the accuracy of President Obama’s birth claims.
Indeed, when three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar to discuss global warming with non-climate scientists, the duck is most objective, qualified source in the room. Too bad the duck was the only entity left off the NAS panel.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Marc Morano has compiled some links here.http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11086/Climate-Depots-Round-up-on-National-Research-Councils-media-hyped-political-science-scare-report
Repulsive: National Research Council Chaired by Corrupted Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill email@example.com
Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
This data set shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary “The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau CIRCA 1922)”.Study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2. These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.(Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011)
Friday, May 6, 2011
1. a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
2. the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
3. funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
If these So Call CFL Lamps are so good, why do we need a Law to impose/force them on to the Public?“ the majority of power used converted to heat” and If the Heat from the Incandescent lamps is removed this mean that we will have to turn up the Thermostats a “tad” up to compensate for the loss and resulting in more fuel being use. Is that not counter to what these poison lamps are suppose to do? “ Some improvement to the environment we live in.”
“World food production has decline” No! world food production has not decline it is growing food for fuel instead of growing it to feed people that has decline Another wonderful gift from the environmentalist.Even Al Gore admits that this was the wrong thing to do.
“Or the the changes in weather over the last 50” Thank God it changes…what should the weather do? Stay the same?
“63% decrease in cold weather days” Where is that occurring? Even the high priest Phil Jones from the MECCA of the Environmental religion The UK MET Office/IPCC stated that “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and between 2002 and 2009, the global temperatures had declined 0.12C (0.22F).” But! But! But! How can that be since CO2 is going up?
“this Natural Cycle which has not appeared in nature in over 650,000” ? 30 years ago it was cooling.30 years before that it was warming and before that cooling and so on.. seem to me that every 30 some years we do have a NATURAL weather/climate cycle.
“Think on this, at one time the earth had C02 levels 10 times higher than now, there just was no life on the surface of the earth at the time.” And that was when Antarctica turned into a block of Ice. While at the same time Life was flourishing in other areas.
And I am Sure at some point in our planet Billion years history that there was no life on earth.
We were told by now our children would not know what snow was... some of us do remember. Global Dimming? Check the tribune History and you will find some of my post regarding GD more then 3 years ago...( I think it is on my blog ).. Co2 is not a pollutant so what is the point of talking Pollution when there is no connection. Pollution is a problem we must deal with but for the right reason not emotional speculation regarding CO2. The only place where CO2 is a catastrophic global warming Gas is Inside a Computer Model, Not from Observed data. If one want? one can say that anything anytime anywhere can cause AGW. Example: Storms are cause by Global warming..How do we know? well we have storms. Another One a Flat tire will cause a car to ran out of Gas ! How do you know .. Well I had a flat tire and I ran out of Gas... It is call The Illogical Logic. Any thing can be cause by Global Warming .. a Bridge comes down GW . A Street Riot GW, floods ,droughts , Donuts Holes, Snow GW, no Snow GW Cold Hot ..even the Ocean Alkaline solution can be call Acidification if you try very hard.