Tag: Global Warming

Climate Change: Just Follow the Money!

Who is really polluting the climate change debate?

I have not met too many conservatives who do not want clean water, clean air, or who want the world to end in 2012! Oh, wait! We are past that already. Well, let’s just say twelve years from now! I get a real kick out of these climate alarmists running around warning us that if we don’t give them all our money, the world will end in twelve years, while at the same time, they are planning long-term fundamental changes to our country.

I mean, if we’re all going to die, what’s the point …

While we can all certainly agree we should be good stewards of our planet, we must take a scientific-based approach to ensure its longevity. However, Congress has proven time and time again that they are great at ignoring real science and incredibly incompetent when it comes to making smart decisions. Or, at least decisions not based on direct influence from wealthy mega-donors.

You can find a study to back any position!

For example, in the 1960s, industry-funded research was designed to downplay the risks of sugar while highlighting the hazards of fat. The study was requested by an industry group called “the Sugar Research Foundation” who needed evidence to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease.

The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did precisely that. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. It suggested there were significant problems with all the studies that implicated sugar. It concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

So, what does that have to do with climate change research?

Not a damn thing! But it does show you that, with enough money, you can get whatever research results you want. Even from some “highly respected” sources.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. While it is true that the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government and left-wing foundation funding only go toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. What we actually have is a pre-determined public-policy outcome buying research to support its program. The resulting government and left-wing foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity than the actual risk of global warming is to our planet.

With the fate of the U.S. economy, and perhaps the planet at stake, you would think Americans would want the actual facts!

But some people in the government and the media work very hard to keep the facts from getting in the way of good brainwashing!

Back in 2015, the New York Times and the Boston Globe pointed to documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, and attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon by suggesting that he hid $1.2 million in research funding contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” Their stores were part of an ongoing campaign by Greenpeace and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

However, by choosing to not be impartial watchdogs, and closely allying themselves with radical activist groups, those reporters fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming research funding.

The Smithsonian Institute, which employs Dr. Soon, told the Times it appeared the scientist had inadvertently violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter.

Soon is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.

“It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding.

In fact, it is almost impossible for some of the world’s top climate scientists such as Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, and MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen to get funding for their work. This is because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

It is interesting to point out here that, back in the 1950s, a study by MIT showed that when the government funds research through grants, it typically receives the results it wants. Amazing, isn’t it! It shocked the nation back then. I believe it has only gotten worse today.

Contrast this treatment with that of Michael Mann

Mann is the director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was also at the center of the 2009 Climate-gate scandal. This occurred when uncovered e-mails between climatologists revealed they were discussing how to skew scientific evidence to support their claims as well as how to blackball experts who don’t agree with them.

Mann is a prime example of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government, which by the way, will gain massive regulatory power if their climate legislation is passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. This number is provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute. This amount dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

According to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann received some $6 million, mostly in government grants, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money WHILE he was being investigated for his Climate-gate e-mails.

So where is the “free and balanced” press?

I used to cringe at the statement that the mass media has become the enemy of the American people. Now I am in agreement. They more I see, the more I believe many in the media are directly supporting a left-wing takeover of this country.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as The Times have ignored the government’s heavy-handed role in directing climate change research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations; funding that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Media outlets have also been one-sided in their reporting on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The NY Times trumpeted Greenpeace’s FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors. Yet, they have ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings by the Competitive Enterprise Institute requesting funding source disclosures of external income of NASA scientist James Hansen, a key ally of Al Gore.

The fact that we have experienced a lack of “global warming” for over a decade and have actually experienced dangerous and record-breaking low temperatures combined with scandals such as Climate-gate are strong evidence that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis in an effort to gain power and control.

Failure of the media to cover both sides of the debate fairly while attempting to shut up their critics shows either a clear disregard or ignorance of the real threat to science.

What Causes an Ice Age to End?

The information below is taken from an article in the March 13th, 2020 Science and Environments University of Melbourne Newsroom. My father, who is a retired chemical engineer and has long been interested in and researched the concepts of “global warming” and “climate change,” shared this with me. Any edits I made are purely personal wording preferences.

Ice Age Team Drysdale

The team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. Image: Linda Tegg

This team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. According to Linda Tegg, the new University of Melbourne research had revealed that ice ages over the last million years ended when the tilt angle of the Earth’s axis was approaching higher values. During these times, more prolonged and warmer summers melted the sizeable Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, propelling the Earth’s climate into a more heated “interglacial” state, like the one we’ve experienced over the last 11,000 years.

The study by Ph.D. candidate Petra Bajo and colleagues also showed that summer energy levels at the time these “ice-age terminations” were triggered controlled how long it took for the ice sheets to collapse, with higher energy levels producing fast collapse. Researchers are still trying to understand how often these periods happen and how soon we can expect another one. Since the mid-1800s, scientists have long suspected that changes in the geometry of earth’s orbit are responsible for the coming and going of ice ages. In essence, the uncertainty has been over which orbital property is most important. Petra Bajo’s paper, (Persistent influence of obliquity on ice age terminations since the Middle Pleistocene transition), published today in Science, moves closer to resolving some of the mystery of why ice ages end by establishing when they end.

The team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. “Colleagues from the University of Cambridge and Portugal’s Instituto Portugues do Mar e do Atmosfera complied detailed records of the North Atlantic’s response to ice-sheet collapse,” said Associate Professor Russell Drysdale, from the research team. “We could identify in the stalagmite growth layers the same changes that were being recorded in the ocean sediments. This allowed us to apply the age information from the stalagmite to the ocean sediment record, which cannot be dated for this period in time.” Using the latest techniques in radiometric dating, the international team determined the age of two terminations that occurred about 960,000 and 875000 years ago. The ages suggest that the initiation of both terminations is more consistent with increases in Earth’s tilt angle. These increases produce warmer summers over the regions where the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets are situated, causing melting. “Both terminations then progressed to completion at a time when Northern Hemisphere summer energy over the ice sheets approached peak values,” said Dr. Drysdale. “A comparison of these findings with previously published data from younger termination shows this patter has been a recurring feature of the last million years.”

The team plans to have a closer look nest at the Middle Pleistocene Transition when the average length of ice-age cycles suddenly doubled in duration.

Additional information from NASA on Earth-Axis Tilt and Seasons

Link to the University of Melbourne Newsroom Article.

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore is an extremely rich man!  He has been peddling a “Climate Change/Global Warming” scam that gullible left-wing Americans have bought into hook, line and sinker. Gore somehow even managed to win both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his nonsense from easily-led pseudo-intellectuals.  But, the real fact is that none of Gore’s dire predictions have actually come true!

Ten years ago Monday, Al Gore stated emphatically that we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming.  According to his predictions, we should now be living in some kind of a giant frying pan! But surprise surprise, the Earth has been trucking along just fine.  Why do so many still listen to this man?  Generally they are the same people who still believe Barack Obama’s lies!  In short, they blindly drink the progressive Cool Aid!

I do remember how, at the  Sundance Film Festival in January 2006, during the premiere of his grand documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Gore made his grand prediction. The former vice president stated, according to the AP reporter taking down his story, that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement.

The terrible truth for Al Gore is that there is no planetary emergency. Not one of the dire predictions he and the rest of the alarmist community made has come to pass. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that they have been getting rich from this hoax.

 

imageedit_5616_3454901650

Investor Business Daily has a few more “inconvenient truths ” that Al Gore would rather not have the public hear (You will not find these truths on any of the left-wing, lap-dog media outlets; you know, the ones who felt a shiver run up their leg when Obama spoke and who now drool over Hillary Clinton):

  1. Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record and maybe “not even close to the hottest year on record,” says James Taylor of the Heartland Institute.
  2. Predictions that climate change (the re-branding of “global warming” when it turned out that predicted warming wasn’t happening) would cause catastrophic weather damage have simply not panned out. German insurance giant Munich Re says losses from natural disasters were lower in 2015 than in 2014 and lowest since 2009. The facts are sharply at odds with Gore’s 2012 claim that “dirty weather” caused by “dirty fossil fuel” has created “extreme weather” that “is happening all over the world with increasing frequency.”
  3. Despite all the self-congratulatory international conferences and pseudo-agreements, the world has done nothing to “fight global warming.” He cannot claim that his deadline has been extended because some governments have forced their citizens to cut carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 levels keep climbing and now exceed 401 parts per million in the atmosphere. It is simply not the dangerous greenhouse gas we’ve repeatedly been told it is.
  4. In the mid-to-late-2000’s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming soon. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction
  5. Gore’s movie, which somehow won an Oscar, was found by a British judge to contain nine errors. The judge said it could not be shown to students unless it included a notice pointing out the errors.

I suppose Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

The newest rage … “Pseudo Intellectualism”

untitled

Dan Gilbert commented that:

“Intellectuals” these days are an interesting breed. Historically intellectuals enjoyed exploring all aspects of a given situation. They compared facts, sought out further study if the research wasn’t clear. They enjoyed defending their opponent’s position to strengthen their own case. Intellectuals valued the intellect and constructive debate. They were very concerned with the preservation of the concept of free speech, valuing opinions different from their own.

Today, so-called intellectuals seek to limit speech, ideas, and opinions other than ideologically approved ones. We hear – case closed, the science is settled, alternative opinions are due to ignorance and other statements that no true intellectual in history would be comfortable with. This is dogma masquerading as intelligence and is dominant in today’s academic environment.

Politicians have latched on to this approach because it protects ideas with no depth or factual foundation, it helps to panic people and create a feeling of powerlessness, leading to more control over every aspect of our lives. A true intellectual will welcome debate, not criminalize those that hold different positions. We live in an age of deep ignorance lauded as the height of intellect, fantasy heralded as reality, and inflexible dogma held up as liberalism.

I have personally experienced this phenomena several time in discussion with liberal friends.  I have been in conversations where my more liberal friends are espousing some view on some topic be it the economy, fracking, healthcare, Global Warming, War of Terror, or whatever.  And in the course of the conversation, should you provide any evidence in support of a view contrary to their held views, it is summarily dismissed without discussion or further investigation.  Hardly an “intellectual” response.

A prime example of this is the issue of gun control.  Members of the anti-Second Amendment crowd, such  as Michael Bloomberg’s newly-repackaged “Every Town for Gun Safety” have repeatedly been caught red-handed lying and creating false narratives about gun violence.  And while tragic gun violence should be addressed, as a nation we never want to address the real issues  involved and instead simple want to ban a tool which the U.S. Constitution affirms and guarantees the American people the right to use.  Unfortunately like any tool, a gun can be used for both good and bad.

The truth is that the recent shooting at the Church in South Caroline is a prime example of why stricter gun laws do not work.  Especially if, as Vice-President Joe Biden admitted on national television in the last election, the federal government doesn’t have time to enforce the gun laws already on the books.  The shooter in this case already could not legally own or buy a gun because of a previous felony drug conviction and the family has already admitted, and then later recanted the statement, that the boy’s father bought the gun for him on his 21st birthday.  This would already be a felony under federal law and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (perhaps this is why they recanted the earlier statement).  How would a stricter gun lay have prevented this?  Explain it to me please.

Also the church was a “gun free” zone, so the shooter knew he was safe to carry out his plan with little chance of anyone stopping him.  There is another recent and rather similar case in which a woman with a concealed carry permit and a hand gun stopped a shooter in his tracks in her church and saved the lives of many of her fellow parishioners.  Bet you won’t hear about that in the left-wing news.

More to the point, however, is that if you bring up the facts that statistics clearly prove states and cities that allow concealed carry permits all see measurable and significant reductions in violent crime, liberals summarily dismiss that as NRA propaganda that bears no further discussion.  They totally ignore the fact that the NRA gets its statistics from the FBI and, dare I say it, the former Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.  That is because their “pseudo intellectualism” is driven by blind ideology and it can suffer no dissent.  It is a victimization-based, revenge-driven ideology that plays well to people with bumper slogan mentalities and it is an ideology that does not bode well for the success of Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity, and American Exceptionalism!

Obama: Job Creation Genius!

GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

I must admit … Al Gore doesn’t give up (or know when to quit).  So, it now seems that if you do not allow yourself to succumb to the hysterical hype about global warming (aka climate change), you are now “racist;”  at least according to Al Gore!   It simply does not matter that the “global warming” scientists were caught red-handed falsifying facts to support their assertions, and that the real average global temperature has not risen!  It does not matter that Al Gore jets around in his PRIVATE JET spreading his “inconvenient” untruths while lecturing us all on decreasing our own carbon footprints; or that Al Gore admitted that his support for ethanol subsidies was a “mistake” and he was simply concerned with getting vote from corn growers in Tennessee and Iowa.  Let me get this straight … all that matters is that, if I don’t fall for his “scam” … then I am a racist.  I wonder what he would call his own dad … who voted against every civil rights bill that came across the table?

So, moving on …

Who in the heck uses T-Mobile?  AT&T has promised to bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S. and create 96, 000 jobs modernizing their network infrastructure if they can buy T-Mobile.  It seems they would dearly like to have T-Mobile’s 4G network structure to help service AT&T customers.  But, good old Eric Holder (of “fast and furious” fame), is afraid of a AT&T monoply and that Verizon, Sprint, U.S. Cellular, etc., are not enough choices for the American public.  It is nice to see he has our best interests at heart! 

Who needs 101, 000 new private sector jobs anyway!  Obama is going save us all … he’s going to have the government employ us after next Wednesday.  So what if tax rates go sky-high to pay us all … at least we will all have government jobs!

The nerve of those republicans … scheduling their debate, way in advance, on the day Obama decreed he needed to have his jobs speech.  I am surprised, and a bit proud, that Boehner had the guts to call him on it. 

Speaking of jobs, I may be wrong, but I just bet Obama’s new jobs plan will want to borrow money from the treasury to create more government funded jobs that will naturally lead to increased taxes.  What the Obama administration doesn’t understand (or simply hates to admit) is the fact that small businesses make up about half of our nation’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employ 60 percent of the American workforce. In addition to this, about 66% of all real new jobs in this country are created by American small businesses! 

That being said, I think that the “Anointed One” should create real private sector careers for citizens by doing things to help American small businesses create new jobs (what a thought). This would directly increase tax revenues because more Americans (who are not simply on the tax payer’s payroll) will be working.  This is much more effective than increasing taxes on those who already pay more than their fair share to form some new government job banks! 

Obama should then lower our energy costs by creating real energy jobs (and not chasing pipe dreams about wind powered cars, etc.). 

Lastly, he should drastically reduce the imports from foreign sources … particularly those sources who threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies.

How would this be done, you might ask?   Obama could start by:

  • Rolling back the quagmire of existing regulations that cripple small businesses.  Excessive regulation interferes with small business growth, and negatively impacts new job creation in the private sector.
  • Lift the oil drilling moratorium, and remove the miles of red tape that prevent more offshore oil drilling! Free up Section 1002 of the ANWR region of Alaska (less space than a square with 50-mile sides) for new exploration and drilling. 

By removing the red tape, and taking away the atmosphere of uncertainty and government created roadblocks; Obama could create  a lot of new jobs as American companies take advantage of new and sustainable opportunities to increase energy production, lower our dependence on foreign oil, and go along ways toward putting America back to work.

Anyway, just a few thoughts!

Still More Liberal Lunacy

Democrats claim drilling for oil will not increase supply!

Question: How do we increase the supply of oil?  Answer: Drill for more.   Seems pretty basic to most clear thinking individuals.  However, the Democrats in control of Congress are still looking for someone to blame … rather than take any affirmative action!  Typically, they have also shifted positions as the absurdity of their arguments became clear to people who have taken the time to think them through.

First Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, wasted a great deal of valuable time debating a carbon cap-and-trade scheme that would have raised gasoline prices even more!  Thankfully … that lunacy crashed and burned.

Then they began to blame the oil companies for the rise in gasoline prices and proposed another windfall profits tax on oil companies.  They, of course, shoose to ignore the fact that much of the profits generated by oil companies are used for finding new sources of oil and to dividends paid out to retirement and pension funds.  They have yet to explain how taxing oil companies will produce more oil and lower the price of gasoline at the pumps.

When that strategy failed, they next began to blame “speculators” for the rise in oil prices.  And … many shallow-thinking Republicans jumped on that bandwagon as well.  But, the fact that some investors “bet” on whether oil prices will go up  … or down … actually has very little to do with why those prices go up and down!

Finally, when it became apparent … even to those doggedly determined to ignore the facts … that the global demand for oil is greater than the available supply  (you know … that darned old capitalistic supply and demand rule), they finally landed on a shortage in the supply of oil.

And their answer … no new drilling!  We will all simply have to drive windpowered cars.  Democrats did  demand President Bush release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve … ignoring the key word “strategic”  … meaning for national emergency use only.

New York Senator Charles Schumer even demanded that other oil-producing nations increase the production to lower prices in America …!  Come on Chuck … are you really that stupid?  Do we really want to continue to rely on the goodwill of the Saudis or Hugo Chavez … ?   Why not rely on ourselves … and increase our own supply?

Barack Obama now points to success of the surge as proof that he was right on Iraq!

He can make this assertion because Barack Obama has a much higher intellect and superior judgment … not like us mere mortals!  I mean after all … some liberal editorial writers even claim he is the new Messiah and will lead the world to global nirvana!  I tend to disagree … however, that’s another story.  Here are someof his past statements about the surge in Iraq:

“I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work.  We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum … military and civilian, conservative and liberal … expressed great skepticism about it.  My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we created a system of phased redeployment.  And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.”

Even after proof of the surge’s success continued to grow, Obama stated “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.” 

However … on his recent “Tour of Duty,” Obama stated that the success of the surge is simply proof that his position on a phased redeployment of troops in Iraq has been correct right along!  How he makes that connection must simply be beyond the intellect of us mere mortals … !  That sad fact, for me,  is that some people even fall for this nonsense!

On another note … Barack Obama, in a comment about McCain’s campaign advertisment portraying him as a Rock Star / Celebrity  like Britney Spears  or Paris Hilton … is accusing John McCain of not carrying on a serious political debate.  Isn’t this the same Barack Obama that refused to have a series of townhall debates with John McCain earlier in the campaign?  Hmmmmmm!

Racist Climate Change?

Guess what folks … Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s now an issue of race, at least according to some global warming activists and policy makers.

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.

Clyburn, who spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to help launch the Commission to Engage African-Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.  

A report by the EJCC (Environmental Justice and Climate Change) claims African-Americans are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.  The goup describes itself as a “climate justice” advocacy group.

“Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites,” the report says. “Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.

The report goes on to state that, “African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S.”

The commission Clyburn helped launch claims Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans was a preview of how global warming will affect African-Americans.

While the report admits that individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change, some scientists warn that warmer waters may foster-more intense storm. A paper on the commission’s efforts, authored by Michel Gelobter, Carla Peterman and Azebuilke Akaba said that, “The flooding of New Orleans still highlights the vulnerability of the African-American community to types of extreme weather events expected with global climate change.”

Glad to hear there were no poor white folks in New Orleans!