Displaying posts categorized under

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

NOVEMBER 2, 1922 FROM THE WASHINGTON POST ON GLOBAL WARMING

By on June 4th, 2017

https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord

https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

I must apologize.
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago.
This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?
Here is the report from 1922
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/re…

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Art of the Climate Deal: How Trump Should Renegotiate Paris By Steve Milloy

By on June 3rd, 2017

While a coalition of leftists, globalists, and rent-seekers rage about President Trump’s awesome decision to withdraw America from the Paris climate hoax, a key aspect of the president’s announcement is being overlooked — his offer to renegotiate.

In his Rose Garden speech, Trump stated:

So we are getting out. But we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

As a leader in the climate skeptic movement, I was at first disappointed to hear about the possibility of renegotiation. But upon further reflection, I considered that Trump had simply included it as one might use “sure, I’ll call you” following a bad date.

Yet now, I’ve concluded that his renegotiation offer may actually be brilliant, and could possibly be utilized to help American businesses, to solve real environmental problems, and even to assuage climate alarmists.

Thanks to fracking, America has a surfeit of natural oil and gas. So much so that our glut has depressed global oil prices.

Although Obama’s war on coal was wrong, it was made possible by the gas glut. There would have been no way for utilities to switch from coal to gas without the surfeit provided by fracking. But as a result, America’s carbon dioxide emissions are back down to 1990s levels. So fracking is a tried-and-true way to reduce emissions while keeping electricity prices low.

Our problem, though, is that the gas glut is not only hurting the coal industry, but it’s also hurting the oil and gas industry by keeping prices so low. If prices are too low, incentives for greater production are limited. Prices are hurting ExxonMobil so much, for example, the oil giant actually supports a carbon tax as a means of raising prices.

That’s bad business, bad policy, and bad politics.

A much better policy: Look to Europe and China, two large economies that have major problems which American natural gas can solve.

Europe is dependent on Russia for a large part of its gas supply, and is therefore vulnerable to the whims of Vladimir Putin on energy — and just about everything else. In China, the dirty way it burns coal for residential heating and cooking befouls its air, especially during the winter, to the point where deadly accidents occur because of visibility problems.

President Trump should sit down with the Europeans and the Chinese and offer them America’s natural gas.

Natural gas would wean Europe off of Russia. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, MEDIA Comments turned off

Climate and the New York Times The newspaper is hoping to persuade readers to burn more carbon.By James Freeman

By on June 3rd, 2017

Much has been written lately about the intolerance of New York Times readers toward anyone who does not share their belief that emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet. But this week the newspaper gave its readers cause to wonder whether even the Times shares this belief.

At least on the surface, the Manhattan-based news organization is keeping the faith. The various items in Friday’s editions amount to a collective primal scream against President Donald Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate accord. As of this writing, the home page of the paper’s website features stories claiming that Mr. Trump’s decision was “stupid and reckless” as well as “disgraceful” and based on “dubious data” from “distorted reports.” A news report says that Mr. Trump made a political “calculation” to ignore the popular will and instead placate his base. Meanwhile a Times column carries the subtle headline, “Donald Trump Poisons the World.”

But the Times seems to have made its own calculation about the risks of environmental catastrophe. And the only reasonable conclusion is that folks at the Times don’t think burning carbon is quite as dangerous as you might think from reading their product.

Even as the newspaper warns about impending doom if Americans don’t limit their emissions, the Times has also been trying to persuade its readers to dramatically increase theirs. In print and online this week, the Times has proudly presented advertisements for an exciting product offering called, “Around the World by Private Jet: Cultures in Transformation.” It sounds delightful, assuming you like the company:

Fly around the world in a customized Boeing 757 jet for the ultimate in luxury travel. Spend 26 days visiting such places as Israel, Cuba, Colombia, Australia, Myanmar and Iceland. Four award-winning New York Times journalists will accompany you, each for several days as you visit areas where they have expertise.

The Times promises, “In the air, your private jet comes with lie-flat beds and a dedicated cabin crew and chef.” Most Americans, who are generally not as well-heeled as the Times’ target demographic, probably couldn’t leave carbon footprints this big if they tried. And it wouldn’t be easy for the Times to design a less efficient means of circling our beloved planet. This week the print version of the advertisement noted there would be just 50 travelers—on an aircraft that can carry more than 200.

The concept of this trip doesn’t seem to square with the message being conveyed in the newspaper’s news and opinion pages, to say the least. Could it be a rogue operation from some overly aggressive and less environmentally sensitive staff in the Times marketing department? That seems unlikely, because at least according to the online description of this fabulous adventure, one of the “experts” on this journey is none other than New York Times Company Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Macron proposes Paris for a global junk science oasis By Monica Showalter

By on June 3rd, 2017

Perhaps because his capital’s name was on the global accord being scrapped by one country, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, 39, wheeled out le grand geste, or grand gesture, in offering “refuge” to America’s climate scientists. As if such a fraud-riddled cast of characters were somehow about to be arrested. Or lose tenure. Or not get a grant. Or something.

In fact, it was for nothing more than President Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, a worthless global non-treaty premised on the fake claims of global warming and policed worldwide by an America-hating petty Eurocrat bureaucracy run out of Berlin. Because the U.S. simply does not want to be a part of the farce, Macron is going overwrought like so many of them and apparently offering asylum ahead of the knock on the door at midnight.

He’s gone off the deep end, just as most of them have.

The question remaining is whether he could actually be serious. Does he really mean to make Paris an oasis of global warming believers and then call it science?

Does he really think scientists in the States are going to give up their cushy tenured positions and hotfoot it to the charms of Paris, which has become considerably less charming, given the existing bureaucracy and existing refugee threat should one actually have to live there?

And more to the point, does he really think climate science, which has been shown time and time again to be a fraud-riddled, data-faked, hide-the-decline, messed up hockey stick, is actually going to buckle down and start producing some hard science, which so far it has failed to do?

Why not call in all the astrologers, quack-medicine practitioners, and soothsayers as well, and make Paris the world’s junk science empire? You know their public will be happy to pay for it, given all the virtue-signaling potential.

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Trump Skips Climate Church Paris exists to provide an imprimatur to what politicians would do anyway. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

By on June 3rd, 2017

The business case for the Paris agreement has nothing to do with climate change. It goes like this: It is better to be part of any confab than outside of it. Like saluting the flag or bowing your head in church, there is no cost to being insincere, but there is a cost to not going along.

Let us understand something: 195 countries will not be dragged kicking and screaming to sign any agreement that imposes a cost on them. Such deals exist only because they provide an international imprimatur to what politicians were going to do anyway.

The oil countries like Saudi Arabia and Norway signed. They plan to keep producing oil. India and China plan to grow energy consumption until it is similar to the per capita consumption of the developed countries, at which point it will level off.

The U.S. and Europe intend to keep subsidizing green energy as long as domestic voters give them permission to do so, because the whole point of being in office is to redirect resources to interest groups best able to reward politicians for doling out the goodies.

The Paris countries agreed to meet certain emissions targets, and claimed an intent to hold a planetary temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Not only are the emission targets unenforceable, they have no intelligible relation to the temperature goal according to the very iffy science. By the shot-in-the-dark estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it’s even possible the rest of the century will bring little warming anyway.

And that’s good. Because the unenforceable cuts agreed to in Paris would be a rounding error even if carried out.

In the 30 years since global warming became a daily concern of the newspapers, one lesson has been reliably demonstrated for policy participants: There is no appetite in the body politic for the kinds of energy taxes and prohibitions needed to make a meaningful change in atmospheric CO 2 . CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Non-Existent Case for the Paris Accord Getting out of Paris shouldn’t be a close call. By Rich Lowry *****

By on May 31st, 2017

For a bull in the china shop, President Donald Trump has so far gingerly stepped around the Paris climate accord. That dance could end as soon as this week, with Trump deciding whether to stay in or opt out.

“Out” should be the obvious answer. No U.S. interest is served by remaining part of the accord, which even its supporters say is mostly an exercise in window dressing — that is, when they aren’t insisting that the fate of the planet depends on it.

The treaty’s advocates, hoping to forestall a Trump exit, are trying to save the accord by arguing that it is largely meaningless. In this spirit, a piece in the liberal website Vox explained, the Paris accord “asks participants only to state what they are willing to do and to account for what they’ve done. It is, in a word, voluntary.” In other words, “Nothing to see here, just us climate-change alarmists playing pretend.”

And there is indeed much to be said for the worthlessness of Paris. Beijing pledges that China’s emissions will “peak around 2030.” By one estimate, this is when its emissions would peak regardless. So the world’s largest emitter is using the accord as a platform for climate virtue-signaling.

According to Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute, even if Paris is fully implemented and you accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s model for how emissions affect warming, it will produce a rounding error’s worth of decline in the global temperature by 2100 — .17 of a degree Celsius.

If Paris is such a nullity, why shouldn’t we simply pull out? This is where its supporters reverse field and contend that it will be a global disaster if the U.S. leaves. Supposedly the moral suasion involved in countries coming up with voluntary targets and having to defend their performance meeting them will drive an ever-escalating commitment to fight global warming.

Once upon a time, Paris was portrayed as a tool for steadily tightening restrictions on fossil fuels. The Obama team referred to one provision in the accord as “ratcheting up ambition over time.”

Whatever their opportunistic salesmanship at the moment, this clearly is still the goal of the treaty’s supporters and a reason why Trump should get out while the getting is good. International agreements acquire a dead-weight momentum of their own. Witness how hard it is to pull out of the Paris accord now, when it went into effect only last November. In another couple of years, it will acquire the sanctity of the Peace of Westphalia.

The treaty may be notionally voluntary, but climate-change activists will surely hunt for a judge willing to find a reason that the U.S. emission target in the accord is binding. Trump’s unhappy experience in the courts with his travel ban should make him highly sensitive to this judicial threat.

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

WILL HE OR WON’T HE QUIT THE PARIS CLIMATE SCAM?

By on May 29th, 2017

Scoop: Trump tells confidants U.S. will quit Paris climate deal.

Jonathan Swan
Amy Harder

President Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.

Publicly, Trump’s position is that he has not made up his mind and when we asked the White House about these private comments, Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks said, “I think his tweet was clear. He will make a decision this week.”

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world that working with other nations on climate change isn’t a priority to the Trump administration. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.
Keep reading 550 words

Caveat: Although Trump made it clear during the campaign and in multiple conversations before his overseas trip that he favored withdrawal, he has been known to abruptly change his mind — and often floats notions to gauge the reaction of friends and aides. On the trip, he spent many hours with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, powerful advisers who back the deal.

Behind-the-scenes: The mood inside the EPA this week has been one of nervous optimism. In a senior staff meeting earlier this week, Pruitt told aides he wanted them to pump the brakes on publicly lobbying for withdrawal from Paris.

Instead, the EPA staff are quietly working with outside supporters to place op eds favoring withdrawal from Paris.
The White House has told Pruitt to lay off doing TV appearances until Trump announces his decision on Paris. (In past weeks, the EPA Administrator has gone on TV to say the U.S. needs to quit Paris, but Pruitt told aides he’ll be keeping a lower profile. He doesn’t want a Paris withdrawal to be seen as his victory. “It needs to be the President’s victory,” one source said, paraphrasing what Pruitt has told aides.)
Pruitt’s aides have told associates in recent days that they remain confident the President will withdraw from Paris but they’ve been worried about him being overseas and exposed to pressure from European leaders and the environmentalist views of his top aides like Ivanka and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Top EPA staff were relieved when Trump refused to join the other six nations of the G7 in reaffirming “strong commitment” to the Paris agreement.

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Anatomy of a Deep State The EPA’s ‘Science Integrity Official’ is plotting to undermine Trump’s agenda.By Kimberley A. Strassel

By on May 26th, 2017

On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop “future plans for scientific integrity” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names. The administrative state. The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to “restore science to its rightful place”—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.
Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement “scientific integrity” policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone had chosen to “hire a senior level employee” whose only job would be to “act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency.”

In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were “under siege”—according to a report she helped write—by Republican “political appointees” and “industry lobbyists” who had “manipulated” science on everything from “mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science.”

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science “incidents” at the agency, and even “investigate” science problems—alongside no less than the agency’s inspector general. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Trump’s Budget Cuts Would Reduce U.S. Climate Change Programs Spending plan for Interior Department raises funding for national parks and oil and gas development By Jim Carlton

By on May 24th, 2017

President Donald Trump’s proposed $11.7 billion budget for the Department of the Interior raises spending for national parks and oil and gas development, while taking the ax to climate change and other science programs in a plan that has outraged environmental groups.

The spending plan unveiled Tuesday represents an 11% decrease from last year, and if enacted would be the lowest budget for the land and water agency in five years. Hardest hit would be agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey, whose staffing would be slashed by nearly one-fifth amid a consolidation of climate change programs.

The president’s budget proposal is hardly a done deal, and likely to face resistance from Congress. But it offers a map of Mr. Trump’s priorities and agenda.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke defended the president’s budget plan as being necessary to allow the agency to return to its original mission of serving multiple uses for the nation’s public lands and water.

He said that includes “responsible” energy development and conservation. Too much Interior spending, he said, has gone into programs that aren’t needed and hurt rural communities.

“President Trump promised the American people he would cut wasteful spending and make the government work for the taxpayer again, and that’s exactly what this budget does,” Mr. Zinke said.

The increased emphasis on oil and gas development would prove a boon to fossil fuel extractors, while cuts in science and range land management programs could provide regulatory relief to ranchers and the mining industry.

Environmental groups assailed the spending plan and said it, along with a proposed 31% budget cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, would decimate land, water and air protections in this country.

Among the other hot-button proposals in the Interior budget: a provision for future revenues from drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which many Republicans in Congress want to try again to open after failing in several attempts.

“Sadly, this budget proposal shows that Trump is no different than the most extreme members of the Republican Party who have waged war on endangered species and environmental protection for years,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group based in Tucson, Ariz.

The Interior budget seeks to sharply scale back a number of initiatives taken at the agency by the Obama administration.

One of the most dramatic changes is the proposed pullback from science programs. Climate programs would be consolidated, leaving some agencies like the USGS with none at all.

In a telephone briefing Tuesday, Mr. Zinke, a former Republican congressman from Montana, called many of those programs duplicative and said he personally believes climate change is real.CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Academic hoaxers convince journal to publish ‘Penis causes climate change’ paper By Rick Moran !!!!!?????

By on May 22nd, 2017

Two academics submitted a paper to a publication called “Cogent Social Sciences” that exposed the entire academic “discipline” of “Gender Studies” to ridicule.

The professors – Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics – claimed in the paper that the male penis is not a genital organ, but rather a “social construct” and that male genitalia causes global warming.

The paper was laughably peer reviewed and published with only a few changes.

Breitbart’s James Delingpole recalls a similar hoax from the 1990’s:

They were hoping to emulate probably the most famous academic hoax in recent years: the Sokal Hoax – named after NYU and UCL physics professor Alan Sokal – who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text to accept a paper titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.

Sokal’s paper – comprising pages of impressive-sounding but meaningless pseudo-academic jargon – was written in part to demonstrate that humanities journals will publish pretty much anything so long as it sounds like “proper leftist thought;” and partly in order to send up the absurdity of so much post-modernist social science.

So, for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:

We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.

They also took care to make it completely incomprehensible.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Obscuring ignorant thought by filling an academic paper with incomprehensible jargon is the post-modernist way. When you reject context and definitions in favor of deconstructionism, all original intent of the author is lost and you can substitute any meaning you wish as long as it conforms to the leftist tenets accepted by other academics.

The hoaxers simply took this notion to its logical – and humorous – extreme.

More than anything, the hoaxers proved that most academics in these fake disciplines have no sense of humor whatsoever. If they did, they would have immediately recognized how stupid the hoaxers’ conclusions were.

Continue reading →