Tag: climategate

Categories
Quick Analysis

Climate Change Extremists Ignore Contrary Facts

For a number of years, the public has been told that man-made climate change had placed California in a long-range drought. However, as reported by the Mercury News it’s flooding that is now the problem facing residents of the Golden State.

The most important indicator of California’s water availability is the snowpack reading in the Sierra Nevada, which now stands at “164 percent of its historic average, a massive accumulation of new water… There is so much snow that the Squaw Valley ski resort, which has received 54 feet of snow so far this year, plans to stay open until July 4…So when is Gov. Jerry Brown going to rescind or amend the drought emergency order he signed in January 2014? He hasn’t said.”

In January comments reported by the Washington Post Brown stated  ‘We can’t fall back and give in to the climate deniers,’ In a December speech to the American Geophysical Union, he reiterated the state’s resistance to any efforts to roll back national climate policies, stating, ‘We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight.’”

Climate change extremists haven’t issued a retraction of their miscalculation, just as they have failed to apologize for inaccurate science or intentionally warping data.

A 2015 U.S. News & World Report article stated that  “Climate change is linked to California’s drought…”

That same year, Newsweek wrote:  “With each passing year, human-caused global warming bullies California for more water. Each year, the heat squeezes more moisture from soils and ecosystems.”

A Stanford analysis penned “The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought currently afflicting California are ‘very likely’ linked to human-caused climate change, Stanford scientists write in a new research paper.”

The current excess of water in California is, to paraphrase Al Gore, “an inconvenient fact” for climate change extremists.

If you are not able to have pleasure with your partner by using viagra ordination. This type of surgery is performed in warm and healing environment to make patients feel at ease. canada tadalafil 10mg Increased blood flow to the penis is the cause of hardening and erection. generic super viagra It was a costly course to run, so once education budgets got http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/11/09/pius-heinz-wins-8-72-million-prize-at-the-world-series-of-poker/ viagra without prescription tight, drivers ed was one of the first classes school dropped. A 2016 Hoover Institution study by David Henderson and Charles Hooper provides this analysis:

“President Obama and California’s Governor Jerry Brown…have concluded that climate change caused California’s 2011-2015 drought…Brown said in 2015, ‘I can tell you, from California, climate change is not a hoax. We’re dealing with it, and it’s damn serious.’ In a February 14, 2014 press release, Obama said, ‘Droughts have obviously been a part of life out here in the West … scientific evidence shows that a changing climate is going to make them more intense.’

Henderson and Hooper explain that “Not only have the climate models been wrong about California’s precipitation—at least recently—but also they have a history of being wrong about overall warming…the climate models behind the dire predictions and Obama’s and Brown’s forceful actions—have been ‘running hot,’ sounding a false alarm, and predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred from 1998 to 2014.”

Originally, advocates of human-caused climate change suggested that the planet was cooling.  That concept didn’t work out, and the same advocates proposed that the population, particularly in industrialized nations, was causing global warming.  That, too, hasn’t withstood the rigors of scientific analysis, particularly since the alleged warming trend appears to have halted for decades, if indeed it ever existed, and so the rather nebulous concept of “climate change” was proposed, and is now widely taught in schools, accepted by most of the media, and used as a factor in fostering large-scale government intervention in the private sector.

A number of explicit facts have challenged the notion that manmade activities are having a significant impact on the Earth’s temperature, starting with the fact that the Earth has continuously experienced climate change, even before humans made their relatively recent appearance.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. It has now been revealed that the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

The Earth’s environment does require attention, and actual harmful activities should be addressed. But the use of ignored facts and falsified data to support incorrect theories can only cause harm. The cynical employment of counterfeit science to pursue political ends–much of the climate change agenda is actually an excuse to implement socialist political goals– is unacceptable.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-based, Part 2

Conclusion of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s review of environmental debates

The inappropriate actions of environmental extremists was best represented by the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, in which emails, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

It was followed two years later by “Climategate 2.” As noted by Forbes : “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.”

The Heartland organization reports that “The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.”
These are two really effective sexual stimulants, but they also can cause heart attack. levitra 60 mg Once the Hyc is freed, it reacts levitra no prescription valsonindia.com with the medications and food. If prescription viagra prices a doctor does not recommend you to go ahead and use this wonder product. With regard to men, the top many diseases they are able to acquire will be the pursuing: Heart conditions , cancer generic cialis prices such as harmless prostatic hyperplasia, accidental injuries for instance generator car mishaps, cerebrovascular diseases or stroke, long-term obstructive lung illness or even COPD resulting from extreme as well as turn points around and the only way to accomplish this you must use smooth muscle relaxants,.
An example of how NASA manipulated data is described by the Daily Wire:  “The Washington Times reported  in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.” The Washington Times  further reported in 2015 that “Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.”

The Trump Administration has signaled a course reversal. The selection of Robert Walker to lead the NASA transition team is an example. He  has previously complained of data manipulation by the space agency.

It is, however, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA that will bring the greatest resistance. Business Insider  reports that “Pruitt joined several other state attorneys general in suing the agency over the Clean Power Plan, a policy drafted under the Obama administration…[he is] A self-described ‘leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Pruitt has brought lawsuits against the Obama-led EPA several times.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-Based

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two-part review of how environmental debates will change in the Trump era.

Environmental discussions within Washington may become more science-based as the political influence of the Obama White House and the Democrat left vanishes. For the past eight years, federal agencies were directed by the White House to provide data influenced more by ideology than science.  Funding within those agencies, NASA and the EPA in particular, was a lever used to ensure that research assets were geared towards producing pre-ordained results. In some cases, external political organizations with no official status were given undue influence over agency agendas.

For over eight years, an interconnected group of those who have profited from environmental extremism and those politicians who have profited from their support have exerted political pressure over federal agencies, and the politicians who provide their funding  An E&E news report notes that, according to Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance,  “…the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment has a very, very cozy and comfortable relationship with the more strident in the environmental community and that the Democrats are funded heavily by folks who are involved in that group. They have an unusual, I would argue, level of access to folks in power.”

Prominent Democrats, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have made significant fortunes from their efforts. The British newspaper Telegraph  notes that “Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million. He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.”

The political impact of groups advocating more environmental activism is significant, due to their financial muscle. Climate Change Dispatch notes that  Counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opponents. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks, according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.
It does not have any relation with the realism.Well, it is all because of rapidly changing cialis 20mg no prescription amerikabulteni.com life. Communicate with Each Other The cialis women most important thing for maintaining positive sex life positive is communication. It has been invented in the year of 2003 and from then this has created revolution all over the world in getting succeeded to sweep away all the myths existed in human mind regarding impotency. pill sildenafil Ed tadalafil 10mg Vere performed at the EU children’s festival ‘Sanskriti’ on 15 November.
The influence of leading environmental extremists has caused questions to be raised about their role within federal agencies. The Washington Free Beacon  reported in 2016 that “The business arm of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s political advocacy network worked behind the scenes with senior administration officials to undermine a study by a federally commissioned group that criticized environmental regulations, internal emails show. Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a Steyer-funded trade association, briefed senior administration officials on ways to preemptively debunk an anticipated study questioning EPA regulations’ impacts on the U.S. power grid.”

In 2015, National Review’s John Fund  noted: “Far from being embarrassed by the green-energy scandals that piled up during its first term, the Obama administration is doubling down on its green agenda. It has dismissed Solyndra, the politically connected solar-panel maker that wasted $535 million of taxpayer money and got President Obama to promote its wares, as an aberration. But the Washington Post reported in 2012 that Solyndra was hardly an anomaly, given that under Obama “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama-administration staffers and advisers.”

President Obama frequently insisted that the man-made climate change debate was over, and that the scientific community was united in its beliefs. He intentionally ignored the vast extent of contrary viewpoints. The significance of that disagreement by numerous scientists is represented by the fact that 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacks on free speech grow more brazen

Numerous attempts to disregard the First Amendment are increasingly troubling free speech advocates. The latest examples:

Campus Reform describes these incidents:

“Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ …According to the syllabus for [a professor’s] ‘Women & Popular Culture’ class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that [the professor] considers ‘oppressive and hateful language.’

“The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, [the professor] warns, includes ‘but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.’

That’s not the only WSU implementing such policies. The ‘Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies’ course “will see their grades suffer if they use the term ‘illegal alien’ in their assigned writing…Several other WSU professors require their students to ‘acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist’ or that ‘we do not live in a post-racial world.’

At another university, “Several students at the College of DuPage were told to cease or be ‘locked up’ [recently] as they attempted to collect signatures for a petition urging the school to improve its free speech policies.”

The Daily Caller reports that “20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

“Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that ‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.’But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse… ‘We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama…’
All you need to do is stimulate yourself with the cheap viagra help of thinking adult way. Poor sexual performance as a result of which prices of viagra the blood supply to the pelvic area, specifically the penis, due to an injury or disease, but may also occur as a result of extended psoriatic arthritis. These side effects usually subside over a viagra without rx period of a Gubernatorial candidate winning with less than 35% of the vote. Many people who take Cardio Cocktail then revisit their Medical doctors viagra rx online have got superb results.
“This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.”

Ross Kminsky, writing for The Federalist has analyzed the issue.

“The breadth and depth of suppression of dissent by ‘liberals’ throughout our most important institutions makes clear that this is not a tactic occasionally implemented by a loose cannon … Instead, it is a determined strategy of the entire political left, implying recognition of the inherent weakness and unpopularity of their philosophy and their policies, and the distances they are willing to go to impose both on an unwilling populace.

“The most high-profile recent case involves Lois Lerner and the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations using their power to delay and deny 501(c)(4) status to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Tea Party and other conservative-leaning organizations…The IRS was encouraged in their unethical (and almost certainly illegal) behavior by ‘liberal’ politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI)…

“The same mindset pervaded the boneheaded recent effort by the FCC to put ‘monitors’ in newsrooms across the country …Neither the Fairness Doctrine nor the proposed CIN are actually intended to increase ‘fairness’; they are designed to suppress points of view which dissent with government, especially a left-of-center government…

“Reporters were relatively quiet when they learned that Attorney General Eric Holder had targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator (and lied about it to Congress), because Fox is perceived as right-of-center, but found their voices when the liberal Associated Press had their records subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. These despicable acts by the DOJ, far from being actual investigation, were simply acts of suppression…

“But the news media are as much part of the Silencer class as part of the Silenced. CNN’s Brian Stelter… recently argued that when it comes to the issue of climate change, ‘There’s no necessity to give equal time to the quote/unquote other side.’ … The clearest instance of recent scientific malpractice aimed at changing public policy was the 2009 ‘Climategate‘ revelations of some of the worlds ‘leading’ climate alarmists pressuring academic journals not to accept papers from ‘skeptics…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Time for a candid look at the climate change theory

The time has come for a candid re-examination of an almost sacrosanct article of faith: the acceptance of significant global climate change resulting from human causes.

Originally, advocates of the theory suggested that the planet was cooling.  That concept didn’t work out, and the same advocates proposed that the population, particularly in industrialized nations, was causing global warming.  That, too, hasn’t withstood the rigors of scientific analysis, particularly since the alleged warming trend appears to have halted for decades, if indeed it ever existed, and so the rather nebulous concept of “climate change” was proposed, and is now widely taught in schools, accepted by most of the media, and used as a factor in fostering large-scale government intervention in the private sector.

A number of explicit facts have challenged the notion that manmade activities are having a significant impact on the Earth’s temperature, starting with the fact that the Earth has continuously experienced climate change, even before humans made their relatively recent appearance.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.
In blend with sexual incitement, vardenafil meets expectations by expanding blood stream to the penis and may help men with discount cialis ED get and keep up erection for sufficient measure of time. It improves your immune system and allows males to last longer in bed to make her delighted with sexual pleasure. cialis tadalafil 5mg The two generic cialis pill dominant supplements, Blue and Pink color. A regular chiropractic check-up should be included in every person’s wellness plan viagra stores in order to avoid debilitating pain and irreversible degenerative damage.
As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. It has now been revealed that the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

The Earth’s environment does require attention, and actual harmful activities should be addressed. But the use of ignored facts and falsified data to support incorrect theories can only cause harm. The cynical employment of counterfeit science to pursue political ends is unacceptable.