Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

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.

The Real Denialism

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.”

via The Real Denialism – WSJ.

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.

Is the Government Buying Science or Support?
A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases

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.

Read the report here: Is The Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-Induced Biases

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.

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

By Maxim Lott

Measuring Global Warming

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.

via Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds | Fox News.

An interesting look at NASA and the costs involved with some of the hair brained schemes that seem to come out of the Agency and Washington.

NASA Adrift in Interplanetary Space

By S. Fred Singer

Since the first Apollo landing in 1969, NASA has been looking, unsuccessfully, for an overarching goal to match this spectacular achievement: landing men on the Moon. The International Space Station (ISS) has not turned out to be what it was advertised. It has made no breakthrough scientific contributions; it has not explored the solar system further; and it has not excited a great amount of public interest since it was set up. In retrospect, many would refer to it as a white elephant. Its annual maintenance costs are a drain on the NASA budget. Even worse, its supply has to be contracted out — to Russia. The trouble is: ISS had no well-defined goal.

Yes, there have been plenty of proposals. During the first Bush administration, NASA thought it had a clear go-ahead and proposed a manned Mars mission, in addition to putting a manned base on the Moon (to do what?). But once the price tag was revealed, around 400 billion dollars (which was then real money), the NASA plan was DOA (dead on arrival).

Since then there have been proposals to establish a permanent colony on the Moon — again without any clear justification. Many have compared it to the ISS and labeled it another white elephant. In fact, it would add little to our knowledge of the Moon, and probably would not even create much public excitement: “Been there, done that” — to much of the public, just a repeat of the Apollo mission.

via Articles: NASA Adrift in Interplanetary Space.

…an essential gas for life on earth.

This comes from the Wall Street Journal.

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.
By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER

Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a “pollutant” in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

via Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide – WSJ.com.

The only consensus is in the minds of the morons that espouse global warming is man made, or that it even exists in anything other than a natural occurrence within the earth’s atmosphere.

Anyone notice that the global warming morons have gotten less boisterous in their routine?

Climate Consensus? What Climate Consensus?
By Peter C Glover

The myths of popular science have a nasty habit of running ahead of the real story by a decade or two. They are difficult to dislodge. It has always been thus. Take the myth that global warming (GW) is today a feature of current global climate activity. Whatever the reason for it, GW hasn’t been happening for 16 years – and not a single computer model predicted it. Then there is the breaking news that the global sea ice area is above normal – and that in the midst of the Antarctic summer. Not exactly been mainstream news has it? But then, as both stories run counter to the prevailing consensus and popular myth, that’s not surprising.

There’s the myth peddled by David Attenborough that polar bears are threatened by extinction when it turns out they are actually thriving; along with stories that that ‘renewable’ energy is an economically viable energy-generating concept; that windmills can provide reliable, regular and cost-effective power demanded by modern grids and energy users; that electric cars make sense at all, given they can only get you from London to Oxford before their batteries expire requiring 16 hours re-charging, and … well, you get the picture. The nexus between green myth and a pro-alarmist mass media committed to falling for, and publicizing, them is plain enough. Which brings us to the big daddy in our age: the myth of still attempting to proclaim a ‘science consensus’ when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Back in the 90s I was an early ‘heretic’ on global warming. For me the facts and data just didn’t add up. But having spent years investigating the claims of huckster false prophets in the church for duping the gullible it increasingly became clear that today’s false prophets have donned white coats, exchanged crystal balls for computer modelling and take the public ‘shilling’ to do planet-saving research. But their chief message was the same: the end-is-nigh – unless you listen to me and do what I tell you. Science-writer Michael Crichton was the first to sum up this paradigm shift to wholesale faith in an environmental Grand Narrative that set the AGW prophetic belief-system rolling.

via Climate Consensus? What Climate Consensus? – Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune.

…has always been a fascination for me.
But this science is pretty cool. After you’re dead, you have cells that can live for weeks afterwards that can be turned into stem cells.
Here’s an interesting article that talks about it.

Human cadaver brains may provide new stem cells

Death will come for us all one day, but life will not fade from our bodies all at once. After our lungs stop breathing, our hearts stop beating, our minds stop racing, our bodies cool, and long after our vital signs cease, little pockets of cells can live for days, even weeks. Now scientists have harvested such cells from the scalps and brain linings of human corpses and reprogrammed them into stem cells.

In other words, dead people can yield living cells that can be converted into any cell or tissue in the body.

As such, this work could help lead to novel stem cell therapies and shed light on a variety of mental disorders, such asschizophrenia, autism and bipolar disorder, which may stem from problems with development, researchers say.

Making stem cells.

Read more.