“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. (Link)
FRIDAY, JULY 4, 2014
Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.
ACS put the above quote into google and got 682 hits. It is attributed to Michael Specter.
Michael Specter (born 1955) is an American journalist who has been a staff writer, focusing on science and technology, and global public health at The New Yorker since September 1998.
He has also written for The Washington Post and The New York Times. In 2009, Michael Specter authored a book titled Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives described by Amazon:
In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad- that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn’t always in our best interest. (bold added)
His book seems not to cover the man-made global warming debate, however the non-science of the “consensus” scientists has surely contributed greatly to the the public’s mistrust of the scientific community.
The “consensus” scientists have (inter-alia):
1. pushed a false consensus - a political, non-scientific term;
2. suppressed data sharing, also non-scientific;
3. suppressed dissenting papers;
4. tried to get journal editors fired;
5. ignored the temperature hiatus;
6. fudged temperature data;
7. intimidated broadcasters;
8. hid behind a technicality to avoid sharing data;
9. released the fraudulent hockey stick graph;
10. claimed “The climate of the future is what we make it...”
11. Eliminated records with negative correlation....etc...etc…
On Michael Specter’s quote, FQTQ note:
That quote by Michael Specter is brilliant for describing what true skepticism should be. In the media machine today, the term “skeptic” is often applied to people who accept pseudoscience because they are “skeptical” of mainstream science: “vaccine skeptics,” “climate skeptics,” “pharmaceutical skeptics,” and so on. The term gives these people (and other similar groups) a bit too much credit. Generally, they are ignoring proof and evidence. Michael Mann, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State University, summarized it best when he said, “Denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid, and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism… or denial.”
A true skeptic is willing to look at all of the scientific evidence available and is willing to analyze it without bias. When the evidence says something, a skeptic can accept the outcome before them...until new evidence is presented.
Looking at the scientific “proof and evidence” available, rather than FQTQ’s ‘pseudoscience,’ we can see that the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide follows the rise in global temperature (
After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.
While it only needs once, the Man Made Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified many times. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Googling “AGW falsified” brings up 536 results including:
AGW - a falsified hypothesis - http://tiny.cc/7g8fix
Man Made Global Warming Falsified - http://tiny.cc/xn8fix
The Scientific Method - AGW Falsified - http://tiny.cc/aq8fix
AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data - http://tiny.cc/3t8fix
AGW Falsified by Real Data: http://tiny.cc/018fix
Jeff Davis, on GlobalClimateScam.com writes
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (See also WUWT.)
So, the Climate Sceptics, the Global Warming Realists are skeptical. But when they get proof, they accept proof. Now it is up to the alarmists, the Global Warming Nazis to accept the proof. Time to put the hoax and the billions in grant money behind them
Regarding eco-religion, Crichton nails it:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.
Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people, with the right beliefs, imbibe.
September 15, 2003
Claiming it could no longer abide the Obama administration’s five-year refusal to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring 830,000 barrels a day of much-needed Alberta shale oil to U.S. refineries, the Canadian government recently approved plans for a huge new pipeline and port project to ship that oil to Asia instead.
When completed, the $7.9 billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, approved by Canada’s federal government on June 17, will consist of an environmentally safe, 730-mile oil pipeline. It will be capable of moving 600,000 barrels a day of Alberta oil to the Pacific coast town of Kitimat, British Columbia, where a new state-of-the-art super tanker port facility will be built to ship the oil to thirsty Asian ports.
It was initially hoped that recent discoveries of massive new Canadian oil and gas reserves could benefit both Canada and the United States by building a safe and reliable pipeline to bring the oil to U.S. refineries in Louisiana and Texas. Building the proposed 1,179-mile Keystone pipeline promised, not just a huge new supply of reliable, clean, and affordable oil to U.S. markets, but the creation of up to 20,000 high-paying construction jobs. An additional 22,000 jobs economists predicted would have resulted from the broader economic stimulus the project would have generated.
Rather than purchasing crude from a friendly and allied neighbor, the United States will most likely need to continue its reliance upon hostile sources like Venezuela. Energy analysts had hoped that construction of Keystone could have replaced almost half of the current U.S. daily crude purchases from that volatile, anti-American dictatorship, depriving Venezuela of the resources it relies upon to stay in power and fund its Cuban allies.
Refusal to approve Keystone has forced suppliers to deliver their flammable crude via thousands of trucks and railcars traveling on America’s highways and railroads, rather than in a pipeline.
Louisiana Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy criticized President Obama’s repeated delays in approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Saturday, saying the president and Democrats in Congress are blockading a project that would create jobs just to satisfy their political base.
“The State Department says that building this pipeline creates 42,000 direct and indirect jobs, has a negligible impact upon the environment and saves lives as there are fewer accidents shipping oil by pipeline instead of rail or truck,” Cassidy said in the weekly Republican address.
“Unfortunately, President Obama continues to oppose job-creating projects, such as Keystone.”
Keystone Pipeline: State Department raises no environmental objection to project
“Sadly, Democrats in Washington stand with President Obama rather than standing with hardworking families in Louisiana and elsewhere,” he added. “They would rather your family struggle than offend their political base.”
The pipeline would carry crude oil harvested from Canadian tar sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Republicans say the project would create jobs in both the construction and energy sectors, but Democrats, worried about climate change, say the fuel being extracted is exceptionally dirty, and that the pipeline wouldn’t create as many jobs as its proponents advertise.
The State Department, which ultimately must sign off on the project because it crosses the U.S.-Canadian border, estimates that it would directly produce 3,900 jobs during the construction phase, as Cassidy notes, and it could indirectly support 42,100 related jobs over that same period.
Mr. Obama, though, told the New York Times last year that the project would only produce about 2,000 temporary construction jobs and only 50 to 100 permanent jobs after the pipeline is built.
Whatever the number, Cassidy said the repeated delays prove the president “and his allies like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are more interested in rolling out the red tape than the red carpet for these jobs.”
“Together, we must stop Harry Reid and the senators who support him from blocking the Keystone XL pipeline—blocking the jobs, the opportunity that it creates,” Cassidy said. “It’s time to retire Harry Reid as the leader of the Senate.”
Regina “Gina” McCarthy is the administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and she is killing the provision of electricity to the nation and, at the same time, is taking control of every drop of water in the United States, as an attack on its agricultural sector.
Like the rest of the Obama administration, Regina “Gina” McCarthy has no regard for real science and continues to reinterpret the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Overall, this agenda threatens every aspect of life in the nation.
As Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) recently warned, “True to her word,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, “is busily grabbing powers for EPA that Congress specifically chose not to grant, and that the Supreme Court has denied on multiple occasions.”
“The federal bureaucracy under the Obama presidency has a voracious appetite for more power. It despises individual liberty and drags down the economy every change it gets,” Rucker warns.
In addition to implementing President Obama’s “war on coal” that is depriving the nation of coal-fired plants that provide electricity, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has announced a proposed rule titled “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act”, redefining, as Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise reported in the Washington Examiner “nearly everything wet as ‘waters of the United States or WOTUS - and potentially subject us all to permits and fines.”
Gina McCarthy has made it clear that the rule of law has no importance to her and this is manifestly demonstrated by the actions of the EPA. “This abomination,” says Arnold, “is equivalent to invasion by hostile troops out to seize the jurisdictions of all 50 states. WOTUS gives untrustworthy federal bureaucrats custody of every watershed, creates crushing new power to coerce all who keep America going and offers no benefit to the victimized and demoralized tax-paying public.”
In response to the EPA’s new power grab, more than 200 House members called on the Obama administration in May to drop its plans to expanded the EPA’s jurisdiction over smaller bodies of water around the nation. A letter was sent to EPA Administrator McCarthy and Department of Army Secretary John M. McHugh (re: Army Corps of Engineers) asking that the proposal be withdrawn.
“Under this plan, there’d be no body of water in America - including mud puddles and canals - that wouldn’t be at risk from job-destroying federal regulation,” said Rep, Doc Hastings (R-Wash), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “This dramatic expansion of federal government control will directly impact the livelihoods and viability of farmers and small businesses in rural America.”
Nearly thirty major trade associations have joined together to create the Waters Advocacy Coalition. They represent the nation’s construction, manufacturing, housing, real estate, mining, agricultural and energy sectors. The coalition supports S. 2245, “Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act” which would prevent the EPA and Corps of Engineers from issuing their “Final Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.”
What has this nation come to if the Senate has to try to pass an act intended to prevent the EPA from extending control over the nationís waters beyond the Clean Waters Act that identifies such control as limited to “navigable waters? You can’t navigate a water ditch or a puddle!
There are acts that limit agencies such as the EPA from going beyond their designated powers. They are the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The coalition says that the EPA and Corps “should not be allowed to use guidance to implement the largest expansion of Clean Water Act authority since it was enacted. Only Congress has the authority to make such a sweeping change.”
In two Supreme Court decisions, one in 2001 and another in 2006, rejected regulation of “isolated waters” by the EPA.
It does not matter to the EPA or the Obama administration what the Supreme Court has ruled Congress has enacted in the Clean Water Act, nor the Clean Air Act.
We are witnessing the EPA under the administration of Gina McCarthy acting as a criminal enterprise and it must be stopped before it imposes so much damage on the nation that it destroys it.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM: April 24, 2014
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has issued a warning to Republicans who continue to question the integrity of the agency’s scientific data: we’re coming for you.
McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.
“Those critics conjure up claims of ‘EPA secret science’ - but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society” McCarthy said, according to Politico.
“It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it and won’t agree to protect it,” she added. “If EPA is being accused of ‘secret science’ because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it - then so be it.”
Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have led the charge on pressing the EPA to make publicly available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations. McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.
“EPA’s leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the Agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.
“We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.
The EPA has used non-public data to justify 85 percent of $2 trillion worth of Clean Air Act regulation benefits from 1990 to 2020. The agency also uses such datasets to assert that Clean Air Act regulation benefits exceed the costs by a 30-to-1 ratio originates from the secret data sets.
House Republicans have backed a bill that would block the EPA from crafting regulations based on “secret” data. Republicans argue that such data was used to craft onerous regulations, like one promulgated in late 2012 to reduce soot levels.
That soot rule is supposed to yield from $4 billion to $9 billion per year, according to the EPA, and costs from $53 million and $350 million.
“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions,” said Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert, who introduced the bill.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” said Smith, who cosponsored the bill. “The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Oil which is demonized is used and fuel for cars, boats, jets, trucks and home and business heating. It is an essential component of plastics, synthetic rubber, synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon and acrylic, fertilizers and pesticides, paint, photographic film, additives to extend the shelf life for processed foods, make up, medicines like aspirin and wax for candles we will need when the electric grid fails because of unreliable green energy policies.