Be sure to bookmark this excellent new site.

Bad News for Science in Newsweek
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study Results reveals that US public school children are remarkably sub par in math and science capabilities. Apparently things are not much brighter for the adults at Newsweek Magazine. See full story here.

The “Unruly Sunne” cannot be ruled out as a Cause of Recent Climate Variation
On July 10, 2007, the Royal Society, one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world, published Recent oppositely-directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature by Lockwood and Frohlich . In the web-page of the journal (Fig. 1), the Society calls the paper “The truth about global warming!” and says, “The sun is not a factor in recent climate change!” See full story here.

A Critique on the Lockwood/Frochlich Paper in the Royal Society Proceedings
Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society which concludes that the Sun could not be responsible for the global temperature rise over the last twenty years. The BBC published a news story on the paper dated July 10, 2007.  See full story here.

Poor Form—Comments on the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
Apparently, some people know no boundaries for indecency. Take Joseph Romm for instance. Romm, a former member of the Clinton administration, claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis last week. See full story here.

Scientific Alliance Newsletter, August 17, 2007

The environmental movement has achieved much over the last few decades. Much of this can be dated from the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, and the formation of Greenpeace in 1971 marks the effective birth of organised, high profile activism. From these beginnings, in less than half a century, environmentalism has become mainstream. In the industrialised world, air and water quality has improved tremendously, recycling rates have steadily improved, and European farmers are paid for conservancy work rather than just growing food. By any standards, this degree of change is a major achievement.

But successful organisations don’t just fold when they have achieved their aims: they find new causes and new goals. Having established their influence, they are loathe to lose it.

Big Environmentalism represents vested interests every bit as much as does the business lobby. Their motives may be different but they are no purer. At heart, they want power and influence so that they can shape policy to their liking. They are politicians by any other name, but they remain unelected. Despite the good things the movement has helped to achieve in the past, their influence now is surely too strong if we want rational, balanced policymaking to be the norm.  Read more here.

Patriot Post

Most of the evidence concerning U.S. temperature trends is collected by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which gathers information from about 1,200 weather observation stations across the nation. These stations are small wooden sheds with thermometers, which are read at intervals, mostly by volunteers. Many are located in sprawling urban and industrial centers, known as “heat islands,” and are subject to higher readings than stations in rural areas where temperatures are subject mostly to “land use effects.”

Most of the recent global-warming alarmists use 1998 as the benchmark for the hottest year on record, but it turns out that their reporting is flawed, the result of a math blunder.

In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record, and four of the ten hottest years in the U.S. were recorded in the 1930s. The second hottest year on record was 1998, but the third hottest was 1921, not 2006. Notably, six of the ten hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the economic growth associated with increased greenhouse-gas emissions.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, reports, “Much of the current global-warming fear has been driven by [NASA scientist James] Hansen’s pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent—I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship.”

See much more on Hansen, Gore and recent new findings here..