“Every time I let the government make a choice for me, I give up a little more of my freedom. I become more dependent and reliant on government to manage my life. I am right where the Socialists want me to be – perpetually dependent on them.” -J.D. Pendry
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The global warming scam keeps getting slapped down, but this idiot in the White House thinks it’s a threat to national security and is responsible for the rise of Boko Haram. The stupid is strong in this man.
All reasonable Americans—this statement is true by definition—scoffed in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama, having just clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, proclaimed: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
It’s been only a fraction of a generation, but the president asserted yesterday that he had mischaracterized that moment. “The planet is getting warmer,” he claimed in a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy:
Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.
Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about 8 inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet.
Yes, the lucky cadets were treated to a presidential lecture on, in Obama’s words, “the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.”
Here’s a great article on Federal funding-induced bias in science.
I’ve been harping on this for years. Any scientific study that is funded by the government will be biased in their results to make the “customer” happy and continue to get the funding needed to continue their studies, regardless of the science involved, there will be a bias that leans towards the answer that the policy makers in question are looking for.
A prime example of this is global warming. The pile on mentality, and the bias needed to continue to receive funding from the government cannot be denied.
The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal funding of research. In recent years the issue of bias in science has come under increasing scrutiny, including within the scientific community. Much of this scrutiny is focused on the potential for bias induced by the commercial funding of research. However, relatively little attention has been given to the potential role of Federal funding in fostering bias. The research question is clear: does biased funding skew research in a preferred direction, one that supports an agency mission, policy or paradigm?
Federal agencies spend many billion dollars a year on scientific research. Most of this is directly tied to the funding agency mission and existing policies. The issue is whether these financial ties lead to bias in favor of the existing policies, as well as to promoting new policies. Is the government buying science or support?
Our working definition of “funding-induced bias” is any scientific activity where the prospect of funding influences the result in a way that benefits the funder.
While the basic concept of funding-induced bias is simple, the potential forms that this bias might take are far from simple. Science is a complex social system and funding is a major driver. In order to facilitate research into Federal funding and bias it is necessary to isolate specific kinds of bias. Thus the framework presented here is a taxonomy of funding-induced bias.
Reasonable people can disagree about the nature and extent of climate change. But no one should sally forth into this hostile territory without reason and reflection.
“Some scientists make ‘period, end of story’ claims,” writes biologist and naturalist Daniel Botkin in the Wall Street Journal, “that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn’t happening.”
These scientists, as well as the network of activists and cronies their science supports, I will refer to as the Climate Orthodoxy. These are the folks who urge, generally, that (a) global warming is occurring, (b) it is almost entirely man-made, and (c) it is occurring at a rate and severity that makes it an impending planetary emergency requiring political action. A Climate Agnostic questions at least one of those premises.
Trying to point out the problems of the Climate Orthodoxy to its adherents is like trying to talk the Archbishop of Canterbury into questioning the existence of God. In that green temple, many climatologists and climate activists have become one in the same: fueled both by government grants and zealous fervor
A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.
A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.
In case you missed it, I thought y0u should catch up on the global warming scam. Happy reading…
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Assertions and Creditable Evidence: This week, the movie, Merchants of Doubt, was released, which claims that certain scientists were in the pay of tobacco companies, etc. without advancing credible evidence. These scientists had the audacity of challenging that human emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. Of course, warming has stopped even though emissions continue to increase and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase.
The movie is based on a book of the same name by Oreskes and Conway, which offers no credible evidence showing that the four scientists, including SEPP Chairman, Fred Singer, were paid by tobacco companies.
Without a causal mechanism, establishing that inhaling hot cigarette smoke was the primary cause of lung cancer was a difficult, statistically debatable process. Initially, many possible causes were considered, including replacing dirt roads with asphalted roads. The work by Sir Bradford Hill, and others, is laudatory.
There is no question that tobacco companies used unscrupulous means to attack the credibility of the researchers. This is well documented. Today’s issue centers on claims that anyone who questions the rigor of the statistical work supporting a politically popular cause must be using similar methods as the tobacco companies did – guilt by association. Fred Singer, who does not smoke, had the audacity of questioning the claim that second-hand smoke causes cancer. The claim is extremely weak, and far below any standard statistical threshold. For this, he was attacked in both the movie and the book as receiving money from tobacco companies, without any credible evidence supporting the claim.
These efforts illustrate how politically motivated persons will label those, who criticize the lack of rigorous science supporting a politically popular cause, as anti-science, or as paid by third parties. That scientists, and once highly-regarded scientific institutions, join this effort demonstrates the general lowering of standards of acceptable scientific rigor.
Fred Singer has challenged the producer of the movie for evidence. Ken Haapala is asking those who give it positive reviews to please provide credible evidence supporting claims that Singer were financially supported by tobacco companies. Of course, there is none. In fact, during his 25-year service as president of SEPP he received no salary or fee income whatsoever. Further, SEPP does not solicit support from corporations or government.
There may be a silver lining in the release of the movie. It comes at a time of increasing popularity of courtroom drama and crime shows. These are educating the viewing public that hearsay and rumor are not credible evidence. Some members of the public may begin to question the claims in the book and the movie that fail to produce credible evidence as hearsay and rumor. Who knows, they may begin to ask the same question about claims that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming? See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Dream Evidence Up.
I also have a new category thanks to this article.
“…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.”
Global warming fraud. That’s what it is. It’s gone beyond scam. It’s charlatan.
Piss off ecotards.
Here’s the money quote (emphasis mine):
This comes from Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists
The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.”It’s a real problem … it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,” climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
