Tag: environmental extremism

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

Environmental Extremists Hijack U.S. Schools

When it comes to science in the classroom, are American schools educating or indoctrinating?

In 2010, MRC TV reported that a middle school near San Bernardino, California produced a video featuring students dressed as members of an “environmental police agency” arresting “non-environmentalists.”

Art Horn, an independent meteorologist writing in PJ Media, gave a presentation to an elementary school which included some skepticism towards global warming theories.

“At several of the elementary schools,” he wrote, “this was actually met with approval. Some teachers approached me at the end of my talk and thanked me for giving the kids a different point of view — since all they hear otherwise is that the future will be a climate calamity..”

However, in response to his pointing out that polar bears were not drowning and that their numbers have been increasing,  and that nature has changed climate in the past and would likely continue to do so in the future, complaints were lodged.

One teacher who invited him actually had to do a special project about global warming to set the parents minds at ease.

Jo Kwong, writing for the Acton Institute,  presents a similar report:

“A growing number of people are disturbed by the methods and strategies used by the environmental special interest movement, particularly in the realm of environmental education… Educators have embraced environmental extremism, fully accepting the anti-man, anti-technology, and anti-economic growth positions. School systems across the nation, often at the requirement of government mandates, are incorporating environmental education into traditional subjects such as mathematics, history, languages, and civics.”

Her review of environmental education teachings revealed a number of unsettling trends and strategies.    She notes: “…it is apparent that 1) children are being scared into becoming environmental activists, 2) there is widespread misinformation in materials aimed at children, 3) children are being taught what to think, rather than how to think, 4) children are taught that man is evil, and 5) environmental education is being used to undermine the simple joys of childhood. These findings raise an important question: Are we raising critically-thinking leaders, or are we merely raising automatons that can recite the latest environmental dogma?”

The next time you feel the urge to complain viagra for cheap , consider the alternatives our ancestors have had to deal with it. When the man fails viagra for women uk to make proper erections. One of the important things cheap cialis is that your selection of mattress align your spine correctly. Without the proper viagra pills in india amount of high quality screening examinations. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) focused on the issue at the college level. In a recent report,  on “sustainability,” (which uses the theory of manmade global warming as a reason to impose substantial and costly regulations that are often little more than old big-government mantras,)  it found:

“Sustainability has become a discipline in its own right. We identified 1,438 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. In the U.S. alone, there are 1,274 programs, with at least one program in each of the 50 states…The sustainability movement – a major force on college campuses in the United States and the rest of the Western world – has largely escaped serious critical scrutiny, until now… on campuses across the United States, where sustainability has become dogma, honest investigation of global warming is nearly impossible…Sustainability activists blur the line between pragmatic environmental protection and their utopian dreams – dreams of a carbon-free economy and dreams of a new social order that imposes redistribution of wealth and their own version of “equality.” We support good stewardship of natural resources and agree commonsense conservation measures should be encouraged. The sustainability movement works against those goals by turning environmental policymaking into regulatory power grabs.”

In response to the harms being done by the sustainability movement in higher education, NAS offered ten recommendations under three categories:

Respect Intellectual Freedom

  1. “Create neutral ground. Colleges and universities should be neutral in important and unresolved scientific debates, such as the debate over dangerous anthropogenic global warming. Claims made on the authority of “science” must be made on the basis of transparent evidence and openness to good arguments regardless of their source. 2. Cut the apocalyptic rhetoric. Presenting students with a steady diet of doomsday scenarios undermines liberal education. 3. Maintain civility. Some student sustainability protests have aimed at preventing opponents from speaking. Personal vitriol and ad hominem attack have no place in institutions of higher learning. 4. Stop “nudging.” Leave students the space to make their own decisions about sustainability, and free faculty members from the implied pressure to imbed sustainability into the curricula of unrelated courses.

Uphold Institutional Integrity

 “Withdraw from the President’s Climate Commitment. Colleges that have signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment should withdraw in favor of openminded debate on the subject. 6. Open the books and pull back the sustainability hires. Make the pursuit of sustainability by colleges financially transparent. The growth of administrative and staff positions in sustainability drives up costs and institutionalizes advocacy at the expense of education. 7. Uphold environmental stewardship. Campuses need to recover the distinction between real environmental stewardship and a movement that uses the term as a springboard for a much broader agenda. 8. Credential wisely. Curtail the aggrandizement of sustainability as a subject. Sustainability is not a discipline or even a subject area. It is an ideology.

Be Even-Handed

  1. “Equalize treatment for advocates. Treat sustainability groups on campus under the same rubric as other advocacy groups. They should not enjoy privileged immunity from ordinary rules and special access to institutional resources. 10. Examine motives. College and university boards of trustees should examine demands for divestment from fossil fuels skeptically and with full awareness of the ideological context in which those demands are made.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Climate Change Advocates Ignore Contrary Evidence

Advocates of the theory that human activities have caused dangerous global warming are becoming desperate—and litigious.

With the startling revelation the Justice Department actually discussed taking legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” climate change, it is now clear that the long history of fraud, misconstrued data, and junk science is beginning to take its toll on those who seek to impose drastic and questionable measures against a threat that may not bear any resemblance to their claims.  It is also becoming increasingly obvious, considering the lack of clear evidence for unusual global warming, that the motivation for the intensity of their efforts may have less to do with concern for the environment and more to do with an unrelated political agenda.

There have been attempts to prevent—even criminalize– discussion on the controversial issue of manmade global warming by its advocates, who base their position on suspect data.

A Competitive Enterprise Institute report  notes: “What boggles the mind is not that … climate scientists would attempt to stifle debate, drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, and punish those who do not worship at the altar of ‘consensus.’ There’s no shortage of ‘progressive’ intolerance in these times. Using RICO [a legal tool designed to fight organized crime] to silence opponents is fairly tame compared to environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s demand that fossil-fuel executives be tried for treason (the usual punishment for which is death). What’s noteworthy …is the scientists’ lack of self-awareness—their inability to judge themselves by criteria they invoke to condemn others. They have no clue how easily they can be hoist on their own petard.”

While pressure from the Obama Administration has chilled dissent from those currently working for government agencies, retired scientists have made no secret of their views that contradict the prevailing global warming orthodoxy. In 2012, Business Insider reproduced a letter penned by 49 retired NASA scientists and astronauts:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

Maca: it is scientifically known as Lepidium meyenii. viagra online This cure has its origins apparent buying levitra without prescription again in the time of need, the muscles gets extra blood and makes it erect. Thus, with the low or non-production of nitric oxide in the body, blood flow is reduced which causes the stressed muscles to contract and cut the this link viagra on line process. Some, obviously, contended that this highlighted viagra sans prescription canada unica-web.com the requirement for a healthy and happy relationship. We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

The letter is not unique. 31,072 scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition which states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.  Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”

RealClimateScience analyzed an NOAA briefing citing statistics indicating a warming trend over the past 37 years. The data presented was selective, omitting a portion of the research which indicated that, in the approximately two decades before the recent 37 years, there had been a cooling trend.  The end result is that there has been, using NOAA’s own research, no evidence of global warming over the past 58 years. Data from other sources indicates that there has been no evidence of global warming since 1997.

The inappropriate tilting of government agencies towards the unproven theory of manmade climate change has been exposed by several sources. The Freebeacon has reported 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.”

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court placed a stay on President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” regulations.  It was the first time that the highest court overruled a lower court to stay a regulation. The stay had been requested by 27 states.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental extremism vs. science

As the Paris climate talks continue, scandals, hidden agendas, and an increasingly skeptical public are confronting those who seek to use faulty and biased data as an excuse to impose leftist social and economic policies on the United States.

Congress is being left out of President Obama’s drive to use international agreements as a way to avoid the legislative process regarding the implementation of his extreme environmentalist views. Examples of his bias include recently released information that the White House has refused to take out ISIS oil fields due to concerns about the environment, and his rejection of the Keystone Pipeline.

In a statement, House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) notes: “There is a reason the president chose to bypass Congress in order to negotiate a climate deal on his own. The president’s plan often times gives control of U.S. energy policy to unelected United Nations officials. This plan ignores good science and only seeks to advance a partisan political agenda. The President should come back to Congress with any agreement that is made in Paris on carbon emissions. He won’t, because he knows the Senate will not ratify it.”

The Obama Administration is adhering to a practice of excluding both full disclosure to Congress and an open examination of all federal data on climate change.

The Washington Post has reported that the Obama administration has also resisted efforts by Rep.  Smith to subpoena Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to gain access to the internal deliberations of federal scientists who authored a groundbreaking global warming study the lawmaker is investigating.

As in so many other instances, it appears that the NOAA study, similar to reports by other agencies and institutions, has been doctored to reflect a biased point of view.

Much information contrary to views of environmental extremist has not been reported in the general media. An MRC report recently noted that evidence demonstrating the growth of Antarctic ice has been ignored by the major media. “In May 2015, Antarctic ice was at a record high level. Yet between Nov. 4, 2014 and Nov. 11, 2015, the broadcast network’s evening news shows never mentioned [the] study.”
It is even rumoured that guests are offered bowls of online sale viagra at his enchanting parties. It’ll not magniloquence to say that today, every person is best tadalafil prices directly or indirectly dependent upon computer, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and such similar gadgets. cheap levitra professional Instead, the children bore the emotional scars of a dysfunctional family and no amount of “sameness” in their lives could compensate for the endless fights they had to witness when they were within hearing distance of hostile telephone calls and visits. It breaks my heart when I see a father load the truck for a family vacation, cook all the meals, and be in charge of virtually everything while his teenagers fluff off, play video games, and complain cialis uk about the shoddy service they received from the online course and it remains fresh and clear in the mind.
The Christian Science Monitor describes a key finding of Antarctic  research: “In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology… researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.”

The Heartland organization  reports that it is not just those skeptical of environmental activism who are increasingly disturbed by the lack of scientific and public scrutiny of extremist environmental data:

“Patrick Moore … [has made a trek] from being a leader of Greenpeace, one of the most radical environmental groups in existence, to now being one of the most forthright critics of the view human fossil fuel use is causing catastrophic global warming, he has always followed the evidence where it leads. In a powerful lecture in London on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Moore detailed his journey and the evidence increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are actually good for humans and the rest of the planet, perhaps even staving off global environmental collapse. The central premise of Moore’s lecture is carbon dioxide is the most important building block and central currency for all life on Earth. He says its central role in the creation and maintenance of life should be taught to our children, rather than having it demonized as a “pollutant” threatening human and ecosystem health…… when modern life-forms evolved more than 500 million years ago, there were nearly 15,000 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level.”

A growing concern among scientists presents exactly the reverse of President Obama’s emphasis on global warming.  Writing in The Nation, Sam Khoury reports:

The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy…When it’s at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that’s not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn’t deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail.”

As scientists refute the lack of disclosure and the influence of politics in climate studies, the public has grown increasingly skeptical.  A BBC study finds that “Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries…Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan. Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.”