Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Climate Change This Week: Blizzard Disrupts Bureaucracy

February 13, 2010

Granted, in Wyoming, we call it winter…

The Obama administration announced this week that it will unveil yet another bureaucratic brainchild: another new agency to study and disperse information about climate change to both the public and policy makers. Interestingly enough, the press conference announcing the agency was disrupted by the blizzard in Washington, DC, and had to be conducted via telephone.

The agency, which will be headquartered in DC, will have six directors throughout the country and will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA head Jane Lubchenco claims that its creation is crucial to making informed decisions regarding wind power, fishing industries and coastal community planning. But NOAA is known to be in the tank for envirofascists, and there is little reason to believe that this information will be accurate.

There is humor to be found in almost any situation, however, and Republican Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) certainly found it in the snow-covered streets of Washington. He and his family used some of the 32 inches of snow that fell on the city to make an igloo. The structure, placed strategically near the Capitol, was then fitted with a sign reading “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works is running out of places to put the snow, settling on an empty parking lot at the edge of town where they’re building a “snow mountain.” How appropriate — things have been piling higher and deeper in the Swamp for some time now.

Naturally, warmists such as those at Time magazine are blaming global warming for the snow, though they correctly point out that “Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries.” But then, curiously, the mag admits that “while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate.” And here we thought it was settled science.

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto concludes, “It’s true that cold weather, while providing an occasion to mock global warming, does not disprove it. But the mocking would be far less effective had global warmists not spent the past quarter-century making a mockery of the scientific method.”


Stupid is as stupid does Roundup: Man made climate change..?

February 1, 2010

Real scientist know that man cannot, and has not caused global climate change. From the global cooling chicken little scare tactics of the seventies to today’s supposed man made global warming these are, and always have been nothing but money making schemes. Is there climate change? Sure, and there always has been, it’s called seasons. Have there been global climate shifts in the past? Of course, and they are pretty well documented by real scientist’s. The various ice ages and so on. Did primitive mankind cause those? But no, the alarmist’s are still pushing to make a buck. Either through increased research funding grants, or through sales of so-called carbon credits.

Hey? All of you faux scientist’s and speculators? What kind of cheese would you like to go along with your whine? Read about it HERE!

Second Hand Smoke

November 14, 2008

The nico Nazi’s are at it again I see.

Physician, Freedom Lover, says Second-Hand Smoke Science is Junk

I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands of deaths from second hand smoke to the Dallas City Council and the public are deceitful for a political goal.

I have been a Texan for 22 years, and a physician specializing in emergency medicine for 36 years. I am familiar with the public health science on second hand smoke.

Public health studies cited by the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General claim thousands of deaths result from second-hand smoke. These are weak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound the deceit by ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 in Archives of Internal Medicine, and Enstrom 2003 in The British Medical Journalall of which show no effect from second-hand smoke.

In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is more important than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti-smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore any study they don’t like.

They are propagandists, not scientists.

The crusaders are willing to do and say anything about second hand smoke, including making public statements about thousands of deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are diverse and duplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouse of a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect. The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by the High Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti-smoking crusade.

Smoking Bans violate the Texas tradition of minding your own business. If the City Council thinks it has a role in telling people how to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find a congregation.  Folks in Dallas can easily avoid second hand smoke, and employment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal. Avoiding smoke is easy.

John Dale Dunn MD JD

Policy Advisor American Council on Science and Health, NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago

The Sky Is Falling On Gore Again

July 22, 2008

I found this piece, and love it!

By Henry Lamb
July 22, 2008

Al Gore has certainly secured his place in history. His Academy-Award-Pulitzer-Prize-winning prediction that climate change will raise sea levels by 20 feet will be studied by future history students, along with the predictions of Malthus and Paul Ehrlich.

With Gore-like zeal, in the 19th century, Malthus predicted that the world’s population would soon outstrip the world’s food supply. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich predicted that, “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”

He also predicted that by 1980, life expectancy in the United States would drop to 42, and that the U.S. population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999.

The grand prize for idiotic predictions in the 21st century has already been claimed by Al Gore. His insistence that the earth will fry, that the seas will rise, and that life as we know it must undergo a “wrenching transformation” will be studied by his grandchildren with the same appreciation that his, and Ehrlich’s ridiculous predictions deserve.

Is it possible that Ehrlich and Gore really think their predictions are valid? Or, are they just following the instructions of Dr. Steven Schneider, who tells fellow scientists:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” (Discover magazine, Oct. 1989)

Students of Malthus generally agree that he was sincere in his predictions, actively engaging his detractors in debate, and revising his conclusions accordingly. Malthus was sincerely wrong. The same cannot be said about Ehrlich, or Gore. Ehrlich jumped on the environmental band wagon early. His book “Population Bomb” was published in 1968, and was an instant best-seller. He rode the wave of book sales and popularity for a decade, making speeches and writing articles offering excuses for failed predictions and promising even worse consequences for what he called environmental abuse.

Al Gore saw an opportunity to re-claim the political spotlight when he chaired the June 28, 1988 Senate hearing that called Jim Hansen to testify that the current heat wave was caused by global warming. Gore, having been defeated in the 1988 presidential primary by Jesse Jackson in the South, and by Michael Dukakis in the North, turned his attention to the environment, and to global warming in particular.

It was Hansen’s testimony at Al Gore’s hearings that propelled the United Nations’ efforts to get into the global warming business. Before the end of 1988, the U.N. Environment Program, and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take charge of global research and action.

Gore’s selection as Vice President in 1992 provided the perfect stage for what was until then, his most influential performance. He publicly ridiculed then-President George H.W. Bush into attending the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro where the U.N. Convention on Climate Change was adopted.

Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was “Mr. Environment.” He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the President to not accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate’s resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be “more flexible” in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.

Al’s crushing defeat in 2000 left him rudderless for a few years, but he re-emerged with his “An Inconvenient Truth.” This spectacular movie won an Academy Award. Gore received the Pulitzer Prize. Once again, Prince Albert ascended to the global warming throne, despite the fact that the film’s assertions were not supported by science, according to more than 31,000 scientists.

Ignoring his critics, and refusing to confront and debate the scientists who clearly refute his hyperbolic hallucinations, Al is now seeking to reclaim the global spotlight. He denigrates those who reject his unfounded predictions, and calls instead for massive national commitment to abandon fossil fuel, and launch a “go-to-the-moon” type campaign to convert all electricity generation to wind, solar, other “alternative” sources in the next ten years.

Gore has been spouting his predictions of climate disaster for more than a decade, while in reality, the global climate has actually been cooling.

The media, and uninformed politicians, gobble up Gore’s gloomy forecasts, just as they embraced Paul Ehrlich’s forecasts of people dying in the streets. History has proven Malthus to be sincerely wrong. History has proven Paul Ehrlich to be ridiculously wrong. History is proving Al Gore to be wrong as well.

But Gore must continue to peddle his predictions. His financial future is tied to his salesmanship. The more he cries “the sky is falling,” when the science says it is not, the more Al looks like a midway barker making whatever claims he thinks will separate the public from its money.

Henry Lamb is the Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO).


I have been listening to world disaster pundits since I was a child. It really is getting old in my not so humble opinion.

The Global Warming Test, what do you really know..?

February 1, 2008

Test your knowledge and common sense in this simple 10-question test.


First it was global cooling, then warming, now this..?

November 25, 2007

Doomsday, yet again, and with even more convincing “evidence!” We did it folks. Now the entire universe is coming to an end, and all because man caused it! (Sarcasim) 🙂

Read on…

Mankind ‘shortening the universe’s life’

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/11/2007

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.

  • Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes
  • Quantum theory and relativity explained
  • Surfer Dude’s Theory of Everything – The Movie

    The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.

  • ~snip~

    %d bloggers like this: