Author Archive

Bill Nye Misquotes Constitution To Promote Global Warming Alarmism

Nye also didn't get the astronaut gig because he wears glasses, not the number of his PhDs.Nye didn’t get the ‘astronaut gig’ because he wears glasses, not for the lack of PhDs.In an interview with Vox, Bill Nye argues that politicians who deny man-made global warming are violating their constitutional duties to the American people. Nye then misconstrues a clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to support his point.

“Well, first of all, I think denying climate change is in nobody’s best interests,” Nye told Vox in a recent interview. “But I also think denying science in general is in no one’s best interests.”

“When you have people denying this basic process, and how we all got here, it’s offensive to me intellectually,” Nye added. “And I happen to think it’s unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts.'”

“So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job,” Nye said. “I want voters and taxpayers to recognize this. Do you really want to vote for somebody who doesn’t believe in the scientific method — and doesn’t believe that we defeated smallpox? Do you really want that person running your government?”

Nye’s invocation of Article 1, Section 8 to shame lawmakers skeptical of global warming — basically a tactic to shame Republicans — omits a key part of the section that sort of ruins his point.

Here’s Section 8 in its entirety: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The clause does not relate to Congress deferring to the scientific method, but rather it allows lawmakers to create a system of patents and copyrights for inventors. In fact, this part of Section 8 is referred to as the “Copyright Clause.” It is not in fact called the “Scientific Method Clause.”

Aside from misconstruing the Constitution, Nye also mentioned he applied to be an astronaut four different times — all four times, he was rejected by the U.S. government because he didn’t have the required levels of education.

“I applied to be an astronaut four times, but I never got the gig, because I just don’t have the PhDs,” Nye told Vox, adding that he started doing stand-up comedy instead.

“I won a local Steve Martin lookalike contest, and I started doing some standup comedy on the side,” Nye said. “So I was volunteering at the Pacific Science Center, and I thought a lot about how young people really were the future, and I wanted to affect them. I felt that during that era, there was a systemic problem in our society. In all sorts of ways, we were satisfied with mediocrity. And I really wanted to change that.”

“The show was basically an effort to affect kids and change the future,” he said. “And the kids who watched the show, they’re coming of age now and are starting to run the world. I’m waiting to see if they can cure cancer and invent a better battery.”

Source

Continue Reading 4 Comments

In ‘Tomorrowland,’ We Get a Glimpse of the Left’s Vision for the Future

clooneyA good science-fiction flick has to include futuristic technology—jet packs, soaring towers, robots who can fix anything, and, for George Clooney, windmills. That’s right—in Disney’s “Tomorrowland,” one of the harbingers of hope, innovation and the future is a medieval contraption that kills endangered birds and generates just enough energy to brew a cup of tea.

In a film about innovation and creativity, one could hope for futuristic technology that wows audiences rather than preaching left-leaning environmental policy. Unfortunately, “Tomorrowland” has entrenched itself in backward, liberal ideas.

Although an entertaining and family-friendly flick, Disney’s new film involves multiple themes that carry political bias. It even has received attacks from such liberal outlets as The Daily Beast, which called the movie “George Clooney’s Global Warming Shaming.” The outlet’s Kevin Fallon sums it up nicely: “It’s Al Gore by way of Captain Planet, Disney-approved.”

In “Tomorrowland,” human beings are giving in to despair and self-destruction, dooming civilization as we know it.

Despondent Frank Walker (George Clooney) begins the film talking about the bleak future caused by unstable governments, overpopulation and environmental collapse. Similarly, a typical school day for Casey Newton (Britt Robertson) involves listening to teachers preach doom and gloom. Talking points included “mutually assured destruction,” dystopia books “1984,”Fahrenheit 451″ and “Brave New World,” and: “The polar ice caps aren’t waiting to decide if we’ll accept climate change.”

The very technology which makes it possible for people to create the futuristic city “Tomorrowland” also gives them a glimpse into the future. And what do they see? Armageddon.

In a vision of the world less than two months from the present, Casey and Frank see death and destruction across the globe. From nuclear bombs to melting ice caps, from streets overcome by violence to cities swamped with water, everything everywhere is falling into chaos. “I’m afraid the world is ending. It is certain, and it is unavoidable,” says the villain, Governor Nix (Hugh Laurie).

Business and government do not respond to the world’s problems, explains Nix. “You would go to politicians and captains of industry, and how would you convince them? Data and facts?” So long as they can keep pumping oil and reaping profits, the villain says, these cultural figures will do nothing.

Nix has a plan to save mankind—broadcasting the fear of imminent destruction through a futuristic antenna that connects directly with people’s minds. If all the people on earth knew the triggers for the apocalypse, surely they would try to stop it.

Instead, “they sprinted toward it,” turning violence into video games and doom into an industry. “You face simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation, melting ice caps, and you won’t take the hint,” an exasperated Nix declares. “So yes, we saw the iceberg and we warned the Titanic, but you steered toward it full speed ahead.”

Here, Nix becomes the villain. Instead of trying to save the world, he resigns it to its fate.

Nix does commit another heinous crime, though—that of “deportation.” Rather than admit more and more people into his futuristic city, Nix closes the doors and erects a barrier. Our heroes have to resort to a spaceship designed by Thomas Edison just to break through, and when they do, Nix “deports” them again. A robot emphasizes that political word as it tells Frank “you’re being deported again.”

With Nix finally foiled, Frank and Casey begin the search for innovators to invite to “Tomorrowland.” With a twinkle in his eye, Frank exclaims, “Dreamers, we’re looking for dreamers.” Given George Clooney’s outspoken support for amnesty-based immigration reform, and immigrant advocates’ penchant to refer to themselves as “DREAMers” after the DREAM Act, his choice of words seems more than a coincidence.

The film concludes with hope as a group of reformers get their invitations to enter “Tomorrowland.” The multiracial group of recruits includes an African woman planter, a guitarist, a car designer, a painter, a teacher, and, of course, a windmill operator.

Source

Continue Reading 3 Comments

Researchers use citizen poll rather than science to justify climate policy

climate of fearResearchers from the University of Arizona and Stanford University used a contractor to conduct a survey, by telephone, of 803 Arizona residents about their views on global warming. They then conflated this very small sample into representing the views of all Arizonans.

The second paragraph of the study press release says:

“The survey also found that more than 70 percent of Arizonans support government action to reduce global warming, and a majority of state residents believe people are at least partly to blame for the planet’s warmer temperatures.” Or was it 70 percent of 803 Arizonans?

Farther down in the press release is this gem of a sentence: “Most Arizona residents believe action by the state to reduce global warming will help the state economy or have no effect, and 23 percent believe it will hurt it.” This is followed by “An overwhelming majority of Arizonans favor the federal government giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from renewable sources such as water, wind and solar power.” Since when is 70 percent of 803 an “overwhelming majority of Arizonans?” Do you see where this poll is going?

The poll appears to be designed to suck you in:

“Q12. What is your personal opinion? Do you think that the world’s temperature probably has been going up slowly over the past 100 years, or do you think this probably has not been happening?”

My answer: During the last 160 years the planet has been generally warming up from the “Little Ice Age” due to natural cycles. The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are so tiny that they are lost in the “noise” of natural cycles. And now we are experiencing an 18-year- and counting “pause” in rising temperatures while carbon dioxide emissions continue and the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide recently reached 400 ppm (0,04%) which was treated by the mainstream media as a omen of doom.

Then we have Q15 which assumes government can stop global warming:

“Q15. If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States ‚Äì very serious, somewhat serious, not so serious, or not serious at all?” This is followed by several similar questions and questions about what kind of actions government should take. These are all very leading questions rather than objective questions.

If you read the whole survey, you might come to the opinion that this is a “push poll,” i.e., a seemingly unbiased survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular policy that intends to disseminate misleading information. For instance Question 33 reads: “As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S. businesses put out?” The first part of that question assumes facts not in evidence.

Professors at the University of Arizona Institute for the Environment have long advocated for curbing carbon dioxide emissions and more government control. The Arizona Daily Star story about the survey quotes Dr. Jonathan Overpeck (co-director of the Institute of the Environment and a co-author of the survey) as follows: “It blows me away that roughly 75 percent of Arizonans think the U.S. government should do something about it and the Arizona government should do something about it. I’m just happy to see that Arizonans get it…I hope our politicians will start to get more in line with their constituents on this issue.”

This poll of opinion and perception tends to support that position. Apparently those professors could not find any unequivocal physical evidence to support their position, so they used uniformed opinion instead. The press release says that “Results of independent survey will be used to tailor UA research and outreach to the concerns and needs of the state’s residents.” Does that mean that the UofA Institute for the Environment will pander to perceived public opinion and political advocacy rather than do real science?

Several years ago at a public meeting, I asked Overpeck to cite some physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions were the major or even significant cause of recent global warming. He was unable to do so.

See the UofA press release here.

See a summary of findings here.

Read the “Arizona Difference” report questions (68 pages) here. (Does not have all the questions)

Read still another version of the questions and results (45 pages) here.

P.S. Statistician William Briggs comments on the study: http://wmbriggs.com/post/16009/

Some excerpts:

Guy named Jonathan Overpeck who makes a living ensuring people are nervous about global warming conducted a survey of Arizona residents and discovered three-fourths of them are nervous about global warming. Job well done?

One Gregg Garfin, deputy director for science translation and outreach at Overpeck’s institute, thought it important to say, “This survey shows the majority of Arizonans seem to be concerned about climate change, which is pretty much in line with the majority of U.S. residents.”

We can guess Garfin would have been saddened had his fellow residents believed less strongly (in falsities) than the rest of the country. Does it then follow that in a democracy it is important that consensus is reached, even when the consensus is wrong, even whoppingly wrong?

The answer, I think, is yes. This is proved in the words of fellow survey author professor Jon Krosnick: “The University of Arizona has done a great service by using the science of survey research to give state residents an opportunity to express their beliefs about what has been happening to the Earth and what they want government to do and not do on this issue”.

What a strange thing to say! Were Arizona residents really burning with desire to tell academics their (false) beliefs about global warming, a stress only relieved by Krosnick’s call? If that’s true, there are still some 6.7 million unsurveyed people suffering. Krosnick ought to get them on the phone as soon as possible and put them out of their misery.

Source

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Barack “Climate Change” Obama

cartoon“Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.”  – Shakespeare, Richard III

I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy. I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.

We know he lies about everything, but these two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.

My friend, Paul Driessen, is a policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:

“Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces have driven climate change and weather events throughout Earth’s history and will continue to do so.

“President Obama’s hubris is breathtaking. He now thinks an army of regulators can control our planet’s temperature and climate by tweaking emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.

“America’s communities do not need to be protected from climate change. They need to be protected from the excesses of authoritarian presidents and bureaucrats.”

Driessen and I look at and listen to Obama and wonder if others too see and hear someone uttering some of the most absurd claims about the climate. Then we worry that this someone is the President of the United States with the power to turn his ignorance into national policy.

At this point we have suffered his initial failure to respond to the recession he inherited from the 2008 financial crisis. More than six years later the economy has barely moved toward a normal rate of growth. Then we were gifted with ObamaCare and the disruption of what was widely regarded as the best health system in the world. And, for good measure, he imposed Common Core on an already weakened educational system. It is being repealed and opposed in many states. For good measure, his foreign policy, if he has one, is widely regarded as a total failure.

How is it a former “community organizer” possesses a seemingly vast understanding of meteorology? Did they also teach that at Harvard Law School? “Climate change,” Obama said while addressing a graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy, “constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake; it will impact how our military defends our country.”

“Our military and our combatant commanders,” the President told the Academy graduates, “our services—including the Coast Guard—will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.” For what? For a rainstorm? For snow? Wind?

This is the same President who sees no threat to our national security from Iran whose leaders shout “Death to America” every day when they aren’t also shouting “Death to Israel.” He has zealously been pursuing a deal that would enable Iran, the leading supporter of terrorism, to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Islamic State (ISIS) is taking over more territory in northern Iraq and into Syria. Obama might as well be dropping bags of marshmallows on them.

He blamed climate change in the form of “severe droughts” for the rise of Islamism in the Middle East and Africa. Someone needs to tell Obama that there have always been severe droughts somewhere on the planet, and floods, and forest fires, and blizzards, and hurricanes. Even so, in the last eighteen years, there have actually been LESS of these natural events, along with the flatlining of the planet’s overall or average temperature—there has been no warming!

Not content to blame climate change for the rise of terrorism, the White House issued a report that was described as “a doomsday scenario of health, security, economic and political issues.” The thing about climate is that it is measured in centuries, not years. As for the weather, while records are maintained, it is usually reported as today’s news with a forecast of the coming week.

So you shouldn’t be surprised that the report blamed “asthma attacks” on climate change!

Suffice to say there isn’t a glimmer of hard evidence to support anything the President is saying these days about climate change.

And this is the same President that wants the U.S. and the rest of the world to give up the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—to “stop climate change.”

If Obama’s climate change idiocy is just a way to distract Americans from the real problems we have encountered thanks to his failure to address them, then it is purely cynical and political.

IF Obama really believes this stuff, he is unfit to be President.

Source

Continue Reading 3 Comments

Junk Science and Cheap Moralism on the Tiber

Archbishop Marcelo S√°nchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.Archbishop Marcelo S√°nchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Source: WikimediaThe Vatican has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition on the matter, and to release through the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences the curious document “Climate Change and The Common Good.” The document’s main author is the Chancellor of the Academies, Archbishop Marcelo S√°nchez Sorondo.

His Excellency was criticized by many for the low-quality, error-laden science in this document, but he received the most heat for buddying up to abortion and “population control” enthusiasts like UN boss Ban Ki-moon and economist Jeffrey Sachs.

Evidently, these critiques stung. The Archbishop returned fire, accusing his detractors of acting on the orders of a cabal dedicated to destroying Science — a charge which found sympathetic ears. But he couldn’t quite escape the scandal caused by his purposely associating with, and giving political cover to, abortion and contraception advocates. More explanation was called for, so he gave it.

In an interview with Stefano Gennarini, S√°nchez shot back with an odd claim he has made many times, that the “climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.” Elsewhere, he included prostitution and “organ trafficking” as other results of global warming.

By any reckoning, this is an impressive list of evils. Yet what’s missing from his Excellency’s statements is any explanation of how exactly the slight increase in clement winter afternoons has caused abortion, prostitution and other grave human evils to increase.

Did the fraction of a degree uptick in temperature late last century make men more amorous? Perhaps the dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes  — the “climate crisis” has pushed these way down  — induced men to seek other excitement in their lives. Or again, maybe the minuscule accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has shouldered aside oxygen, depriving our brains and lessening our capacity to reason.

“These are serious matters!” the objection will run. And so they are. But mentioning something serious doesn’t make you a serious person. There must be more than moral dudgeon backing a claim as … grandiose as S√°nchez’s, namely that global warming causes abortion. There must be evidence. Is there? The answer depends on how reliable global warming theory is.

Many have fallen prey to the unscientific belief that predictions of doom are proof the predictions are right, and that therefore the theory which generated the predictions must be correct. Otherwise intelligent people commit these blunders because of fear, or because they are in the grip of environmentalist ideology, or, in the worst cases, because it is politically convenient.

The predictions of doom have been consistent: temperature is promised to soar ever upwards. The theory is that small boosts in carbon dioxide (compared to the atmosphere as a whole), by way of feedback mechanisms too complicated to explain here, are responsible for the rise. The predictions are consistent, all right. Consistently poor. No, worse than poor. Rotten. For nearly two decades, climate models have predicted rising temperatures, but the reality has been that there is no such increase.

Since the climate is demonstrably not changing in the direction or rate predicted, how could this non-event be increasing the incidence of abortion, organ harvesting and slavery?

Let me pose another question. Which is more likely to lead to more abortions:

(A) Global warming, through a twisting, fanciful chain of causality, which anyway hasn’t even happened yet, or

(B) The bolstering of the rich, influential, abortion- and contraception-friendly United Nations and radical NGOs, who can now claim to enjoy “Vatican support”?

It is, or used to be, a fundamental principle of science that a theory was proved false when predictions made based on the theory were a bust. Even Einstein had to wait for Arthur Eddington to verify relativity’s predictions before scientists wholly backed the theory.

S√°nchez was asked about this principle: “What do you answer to so called ‘climate skeptics’ who point to the lack of change in temperatures in the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definite correlation between human activity and large scale climate changes?”

His response was revealing: “I hope you are not [a skeptic] because then we would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!”

S√°nchez went on to hurl some false accusations of his own. He said climate change skeptics were all either members of the Tea Party or people with “incomes derived from oil.” Because, well, that would prove that everything they’re saying is false, wouldn’t it? Thank heavens no scientists who assert that man-made climate change is a crisis receive any income for their work, or support from billion-dollar foundations.

Archbishop S√°nchez is keen on sustainability, which many take as a code word for population control. On this issue, he said that his Sustainable Development Goals didn’t “even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

Everybody, even his Excellency, knows what such words are: dull euphemisms for population control and abortion. This is why he tried to deflect the moral implications of including these terms in Church documents by saying, “Some may even interpret [these terms] as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity.” If there is a polite, ecclesiastical way of saying “balderdash,” this is the place for it.

The Archbishop said that we “can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend.” Okay, let’s accept that. Yet it is also true that S√°nchez’s actions have lent political, cultural, and religious support to organizations which push, and push heavily, population control and the systematic killing of the unborn. They now can claim Vatican support for their agendas.

The Archbishop sought these worldly connections to give weight and prominence to his political programs. He ought to at least consider what is obvious to the rest of us: that his actions will foster the very evils he hopes to eliminate.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

California drought stories missing something

smelt uproarA media watchdog group says analysis of the coverage of California’s lack of rain on the network evening newscasts in the last 18 months reveals a drought in balanced and accurate reporting.

According to the Media Research Center, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news featured 188 stories in the past year and a half about the California drought. MRC’s Julia Seymour recognizes that it is a big story, so she is not surprised by that statistic.

“But what we didn’t find in these stories and should have found were stories bringing up the problems that environmental regulations have actually caused or worsened the crisis by sending massive quantities of water out to sea through projects to divert water, like to save fish like the Delta Smelt,” she submits. “Those stories were missing, as well as any real indication that the government might have failed to do its job to prepare for changes in weather patterns.”

When the networks tried to address the causes for the drought, Seymour reports it was either the weather pattern impacting the jet stream or global warming/climate change.

“The weather comments were legitimate; the climate change ones, however, are definitely a stretch, because scientists are still debating this issue,” she explains. “Even The New York Times, one of those very alarmist reporters, admitted there is no definitive evidence that climate change is what’s causing California’s drought problems.”

Seymour concludes that the evening network newscasts have been unwilling to acknowledge the fuller picture of the drought.

Source

Continue Reading

In polite company, it’s not proper to talk about religion, politics, or the weather

Hansen giving Congressional testimony in 1988 on the perils of global warming. His predictions were off by 300%.Hansen giving Congressional testimony in 1988 on the perils of global warming. His predictions were off by 300%.There’s an old saying that in polite company, it’s not proper to talk about religion or politics, so stick to neutral subjects like the weather to avoid conversational confrontation.  Nowadays, the climate on that subject has changed dramatically. 

Earlier this year, I attended a presentation on recent and projected short-term weather conditions for southwestern Pennsylvania.  The event was directed at specialists in the public health profession.  A meteorologist from the local National Weather Service office gave details on the region’s recent cold snap and estimated when he expected a warm-up for spring ‚Äì all well and good, until an attendee turned the talk to anthropogenic climate change.

The participant was concerned that everything from local weather anomalies to ocean acidity and sea-level rise was attributable to people.  The same ubiquitous, dubious soundbite arguments targeting the culpability of Americans living comfortably were tossed out as if they were indisputable facts.  But the angst from the attendee was real.

Where did all this weather worry originate?

As a practitioner in the atmospheric science profession for 35 years, I have witnessed a great deal of change in the field of climatology.  Gone are the days when climate science was focused on the tedious collecting, analyzing, and disseminating of facts and figures from local, regional, and global data.  Today, it’s easy to find fame and fortune in forecasting frightening futures.

Since the early 1980s, social and political opportunists have been riding the arrogant confidence of a handful of authoritative scientists to trample the objectivity of climate reality.  So a mundane chat that includes “the balmy temperatures we’ve been having lately” becomes “what are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint to stop this global warming?”  The traditional “January thaw” morphs into clear evidence of “man-made climate change.”

And now, many of our betters in the federal government assure us that apparently specially imbued climatologists can be trusted to tell us if the Earth will still be habitable a hundred years hence or, as a minimum, which energy sources to invest in.

Thus, the divinations of a climate science high priesthood propped up by the power of the political class have warranted certainty about the future state of global conditions, which is certainly unwarranted, given the reality that global average temperature has leveled off over the past 18 years.  In fact, some scientists are seriously predicting an imminent substantial temperature drop worldwide based on trends in natural conditions that include sunspot activity and ocean circulation patterns.

Nevertheless, when a friendly conversation about the weather turns into a holy war against “climate deniers,” it’s time to recognize that the weather topic has become just another turbulent atmosphere suffused with religion and politics.

So be extra-careful what you talk about – the list of subjects for polite discussion is shrinking.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Science (St. Louis: Telescope Books).

Source

Continue Reading

Seattle Activist asks for help being rescued, suffered from hypothermia

seattle womanThe woman who had been hanging off the anchor chain of a support ship that is part of Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to explore for oil in the Arctic Ocean ended her days-long protest in Seattle on Monday morning.

Student activist Chiara D’Angelo requested assistance getting down from her perch on the Arctic Challenger in the Bellingham harbor around 9.30am on Monday, the Coast Guard said. 

‘Angelo was checked for hypothermia and then released,’ Petty Officer 3rd Class Katelyn Shearer said.

She spent the weekend attached to the ship in an environmental protest against Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea off northwestern Alaska. 

The oil company’s proposal also has drawn large protests in Seattle, where a massive, floating drill rig is being prepared for the excursion.

A second protester, Matt Fuller, had joined D’Angelo from Saturday morning until Sunday about 4.30am.

The Coast Guard said it brought Fuller to Coast Guard Station Bellingham, where he was met by medical staff and local police. He was not arrested. 

The Coast Guard cutter Ospry spent the weekend monitoring the activists but took no action, Shearer said.

Shell said on Sunday that the illegal stunt would not delay its plans.

‘We respect the rights of individuals to express their views related to our Arctic program, so long as they do so safely and lawfully,’ company spokesman Curtis Smith said.

Smith said the two activists trespassed on private property, while compromising their safety and that of others. 

He commended the Coast Guard and local law enforcement for de-escalating the incident.

Lt. Cmdr. Justin Noggle, chief of enforcement at Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound, said on Sunday that it is the agency’s duty to promote safety on the seas and in ports and to protect the First Amendment rights of people to safely and lawfully assemble on the water.

The Arctic Challenger is a converted barge that is designed to launch containment equipment in the event of a spill. Protesters have questioned its ability to be effective in the harsh Arctic climate.

Earlier this month, hundreds of activists in kayaks swarmed Elliott Bay in Seattle to protest Shell’s plans. 

The ship isn’t scheduled to leave the port for several days.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported

earth sun risingIn my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon. John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.

He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.

Cook, being a PhD student in psychology with a background in communication studies, is hardly in a position to dismiss the membership of the American Meteorological Society as “fake experts.” As to fakery, I would refer readers to the analysis of Cook’s work by social psychologist Jose Duarte, noting that the word “fraud” appears 21 times in that essay alone, and it is not even the harshest of Duarte’s essays on Cook’s discredited methods. Economist Richard Tol has also published detailed excoriations of Cook’s work at as well as in the peer-reviewed literature, as have others.

The Illinois study asked 10,257 Earth Scientists “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The question was vague to the point of meaninglessness. It only refers to “a,” not “the,” factor; it only refers to “human activity” in general, thus conflating land use change, conventional air pollution emissions and greenhouse gases; and it only refers to “changing” mean temperatures (since 1800), without specifying a portion of the total observed. So someone who thinks greenhouse gases caused only a small fraction of the warming would answer Yes, as would someone who thought they drove it all.

The Illinois authors received 3,146 responses. After seeing the answers they selected only 77 as being relevant, and of these 75 (97 per cent) said Yes. What puzzles me is why two answered No. And why the authors asked 10,257 experts for their views when they only considered 77 qualified to answer.

The Princeton study started with 1,372 experts and found that 97 of the ones they deemed the top-100 publishing scientists in the climatology field were also contributors to the IPCC or had signed statements supporting the IPCC position. Hence 97 per cent yadda yadda. But this study design may simply be a circular argument, since the top climatology journals are not double-blind, so it can be difficult for critics of the IPCC to get their papers published. In other words, this result might simply be a measure of the level of clique-citation and group think in the sample they selected. In this regard it is quite noteworthy that the AMS and Netherlands surveys were anonymous and they found nowhere near 97 per cent support for the IPCC conclusion.

Source

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Add it to the list: Sneezing and Wheezing from Ragweed

ragweedAnother item to add to the ever-growing list of what is getting blamed by man-made global warming: more sneezing and wheezing to Europe by 2050 due to increased ragweed. Based on computer models, of course. From the AP:

Global warming will bring much more sneezing and wheezing to Europe by mid-century, a new study says.

Ragweed pollen levels are likely to quadruple for much of Europe because warmer temperatures will allow the plants to take root more, and carbon dioxide will make them grow more, says a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. Other factors not related to man-made climate change will also contribute.

Ragweed isn’t native to Europe, but was imported from America in the late 19th century. It hasn’t quite become established all over the continent, at least not yet.

Parts of France, the United Kingdom and Germany don’t have the allergens now, but they will by 2050, says study co-author Robert Vautard, a climate scientist at the Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory in Yvette, France. That includes Paris, where Vautard lives.

“As warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations allow ragweed to become more vigorous and invade further north, we can expect to see many more allergy sufferers,” said Daniel Chapman, an invasive species expert at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh, Scotland. He did not take part in the study, but praised it.

The researchers used computer simulations with different scenarios of carbon dioxide pollution for the next 35 years. And if the world doesn’t make a large change in emissions from coal, oil and gas, the computer runs predicted increases in the annual pollen count of 100 to 1,100 percent, with a general average of around 300 percent, Vautard said.

Continue Reading