When a plan begins to fail, you either reconsider the plan or double-down by resorting to earlier successful actions.
The climate change argument is failing as evidence shows the science is wrong, all forecasts fail, polls show a lack of public concern and the Paris Climate Conference Agreement is collapsing. However, there is a bigger reason why it all fails…There was no problem in the first place.
However, there is a bigger reason why it all fails…There was no problem in the first place.
As I said years ago, “The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification.”
Emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 2009 exposed the corrupt science and forced a Kyoto replacement, the Green Climate Fund.
Donna Laframboise has a great piece in the Spectator – How Many Scientific Papers Just Aren’t True? – about why so much science research these days is bunk because the whole “peer-review” process is broken. She means climate science especially, of course.
Someone should tell the guys at green propaganda site CarbonBrief.
Thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers are published about climate change every year. These articles form the bedrock of climate science, underpinning the assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Everyone on the Alarmist side of the argument is forever invoking “consensus” and “peer-review” because the Appeal to Authority is all they’ve got. Their science is tainted beyond redemption and the only hope they’ve got of persuading the world that it’s not is to hide the facts behind barriers of supposed expertise: “You little people cannot possibly be expected to understand these complex matters. Instead you must take on trust the expertise of the climate scientists who have written all these learned papers. And the reason you can take on trust the expertise of their learned papers is that they have been carefully assessed by other climate experts in the process we call ‘peer-review’”.
Except, of course, as Donna Laframboise points out, these papers often haven’t been vetted at all.
Back in 1987, when there was a huge panic over the hole opening up in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, 197 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, the world’s first major environmental treaty, agreeing to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in everything from refrigerators to hair-sprays, which were supposedly causing the ozone to disappear.
How far this has actually been responsible for the fact that the ozone hole has recently been shrinking is still a matter of scientific dispute. But CFCs have been widely replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air-conditioning, which, because they are short-lived, were viewed not to be damaging to the ozone layer.
However the penny has finally dropped that these HFCs are even more powerful greenhouse gases than the CFCs. So the Montreal Protocol must now be amended to ban these wicked “pollutants” as soon as possible, not least in light of last December’s Paris agreement that supposedly pledged the world to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
According to the IPCC (2007), changes in climate occur as a consequence of variations in the Earth’s radiation budget (solar energy absorbed by versus leaving the surface). Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget occur for 3 primary reasons; two of those three reasons involve solar forcing.
IPCC AR4:
“Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet. There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change:
(1)changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself),
(2)changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and
(3)altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations).”
Government funding is leading to scientific research that can’t be replicated, according to a new report detailing growing problems in the scientific community.
Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the report illustrates how scientific research is susceptible to bias when it is funded by the government and how a considerable number of scientific studies cannot be replicated or reproduced. As a result, government policy based on the research isn’t based on scientific methods and cannot be accepted as fact.
“Medical research, psychology, and economics are all in the grip of a ‘reproducibility crisis.’ A pharmaceutical company attempting to confirm the findings of 53 landmark cancer studies was successful in only six instances, a failure rate of 89{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. ” Donna Laframboise, a journalist who authored the report, said in a statement. “Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test.”
Leonardo DiCaprio claims his new film will illustrate the dangers of climate change. Before the Flood is a new “documentary” that chronicles DiCaprio’s carbon-spewing journey across the planet, where he relies on natural disasters to prove that global warming is occurring and catastrophic.
The Oscar-winning actor speaks to scientists, politicians, and academics who provide dramatic soundbites about man-made global warming, but he fails to include a single quote from the thousands of scientists, politicians, and academics who vehemently disagree with these soundbites.
The United Nations has made frequent use of the Hollywood star in an effort to demonize fossil fuel use. The result? DiCaprio’s new film is something the actor claims will “scare the hell” out of people.
A new study in Nature says #Climate Change may force the polar vortex to dip down more often, triggering bone-chilling winters in Europe and North America. Many of the claims of an overheated Earth dissipate during winter as temperatures plummet and heating bills rise. Yet the authors write that as the Arctic warms and more sea ice melts, additional ocean water is exposed, absorbing the sun’s warmth.
The excess warmth then gets released over a longer time period, interrupting the polar vortex and pushing it down into lower latitudes. Sea ice, however, reflects the sun’s rays back into space, causing temperatures to plummet during the winter. That’s what happened in early 2014 and 2015 when Arctic air bullied its way toward more temperate regions.
I have always wanted to ask people if they knew the difference between global warming and global cooling. I think of this because one of my closest friends is a firm believer in the idea that man is warming the planet. So I must ask them if they really understand the difference between global warming and global cooling.
The answer is really simple. It depends on your start date.
If your starting point was the early 1980’s then you can show global warming. If your start date was 15-20 years ago you would find no cooling or warming. If your start date was 1600 AD (during the Little Ice Age) you’d find significant warming. I assume if you started in 1100 BC you’d find a cooling trend.
So what makes any one of these start dates the correct date?
Let’s say you are a firm believer that the planet is warming. Why assume man is responsible? I mean, there is a warming trend since the 1600’s. Did man cause that?
And was there any warming before the 1600s? Emphatically yes.
If you look at a chart showing temperatures for the past 600 million years, you will see that it has been far warmer than today for almost all of those 600 million years. Did man cause that?
For the science to be valid, there would have to be definitive proof that natural warming stopped and was replaced by man made warming.
I don’t believe any such proof has ever been shown.
Recent intelligence suggests that rutabagas (‘swede’ or ‘turnip’ to some) may be on the war path. But don’t worry, the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is standing by to defend you.
The government forces have been accumulating heavy artillery to counter any rutabaga threat. According to the Wall Street Journal, between 2004 and 2015, APHIS spent $4.8 million buying shotguns, rifles, night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, drones, infrared scopes and other gear to counter any turnip insurrection.
Modern feminism isn’t compatible with science, a biologist wrote on a science blog Wednesday.
Dr. Alex Berezow, a biomedical scientist with a doctorate in microbiology writing on the blog of the American Council on Science and Health, found that much of mainstream feminist theory directly conflicts with modern biology, as it is inherently built on ideas which cannot be proven or refuted.
“Ideology is a double-edged sword. Dedication to a set of beliefs can be admirable, but when it leads to inflexibility and obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is a dangerous thing,” Berezow said. “[F]eminism has been built upon ideas that can neither be proven nor refuted, precisely the sort of evidence-free groupthink that typifies unscientific thinking.”
Berezow noted that many feminists “deny the prominent role of biology in our lives” allowing instead for the promotion of ideas that are “dangerous nonsense” on college campuses, which should be unbiased sources of truth.
Water used in oil production can be reused to water crops with no adverse effects, according to research published Monday by California government officials.
Officials in the state’s Cawelo Water District (Cawelo) concurred with toxicologists that the recycled water was safe for agricultural use. Researchers found no difference in crops which were irrigated with recycled water extracted during the oil production process,and those irrigated from other sources. This confirmed previous analyses that recycled water is safe for crops.
According to the WMO, carbon dioxide levels remained steady at 400 parts per million during 2015 thanks to a strong, naturally occurring El Niño that affected our climate and hastened global warming. That’s in line with the monitoring station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which uses a variety of #Science-based methods to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) levels across the globe.
The worldwide average of CO2 went up 2.3 parts per million (ppm) over 2014 levels, a 0.58 percent increase over the previous year. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) also said in its yearly bulletin that CO2 levels have gone up an average of 2.08 ppm per year during the last ten years.
Collectively, CO2 emissions make up the largest chunk of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and President #Obama has pledged to “cut emissions 26%-28% by 2025 over 2005 levels” as part of the U.N.-backed Paris Climate Agreement. A large chunk of man-made emissions comes from coal-fired power plants in China and India, two nation states not required to cut emissions until 2030 under the recently ratified climate accord.
In 1982, NASA showed that sea level rise dropped off sharply after 1950.
NASA said that there was a high correlation with global surface temperature (i.e. global warming occurred from 1880 to 1940 and slowed considerably after 1950.)
The NASA/IPCC data wrecked two essential parts of the global warming scam – post-1950 warming and post-1950 sea level rise. So they found people who were willing to change the data to match the models. The current NASA sea level data is based on this confirmation bias fishing expedition.
This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations
The overlay below shows how they changed the post-1950 data to match the theory.
Church and White discovered a mysterious break in sea level in the year 1926, when sea level rise rates suddenly increased by almost 250% to 1,94 mm/year.
“The politician is sometimes tempted to encroach on the normal territory of the scientific estate. In such issues the problem is less often whether politics will presume to dictate to science than it is how much politics is to be influenced by the new findings of science.”[1]
The climate change debate has exposed a deeper problem with our science and scientific knowledge. The problem is not that science is unable to answer all of our questions. Rather, the problem is that the body politic has come to see science as an instrument to pass on ‘hot potatoes,’ i.e. complex issues raising a large range of empirical questions and implicating important value judgments. Scientists have failed to point out the limits of science and to bounce the ball back to the politicians.
In the market for ‘evidence’ for policy making, politicians demand arguments for their desired policies, which scientists supply in the form of research and reports. Their research, however, does little to resolve the policy issues faced by the body politic, and does not advance social progress. Climate science is the poster child of these developments.
Everyone knows they need to manage their stress. When things get difficult at work, school, or in your personal life, you can use as many tips, tricks, and techniques as you can get to calm your nerves.
So here’s a science-backed one: make a playlist of the 10 songs found to be the most relaxing on earth.Sound therapies have long been popular as a way of relaxing and restoring one’s health. For centuries, indigenous cultures have used music to enhance well-being and improve health conditions.
Now, neuroscientists out of the UK have specified which tunes give you the most bang for your musical buck.
The study was conducted on participants who attempted to solve difficult puzzles as quickly as possible while connected to sensors. The puzzles induced a certain level of stress, and participants listened to different songs while researchers measured brain activity as well as physiological states that included heart rate, blood pressure, and rate of breathing.
According to Dr. David Lewis-Hodgson of Mindlab International, which conducted the research, the top song produced a greater state of relaxation than any other music tested to date.
In fact, listening to that one song — “Weightless” — resulted in a striking 65 percent reduction in participants’ overall anxiety, and a 35 percent reduction in their usual physiological resting rates.
Try it….
That is remarkable.
Equally remarkable is the fact the song was actually constructed to do so. The group that created “Weightless”, Marconi Union, did so in collaboration with sound therapists. Its carefully arranged harmonies, rhythms, and bass lines help slow a listener’s heart rate, reduce blood pressure and lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol.
When it comes to lowering anxiety, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Stress either exacerbates or increases the risk of health issues like heart disease, obesity, depression, gastrointestinal problems, asthma, and more. More troubling still, a recent paper out of Harvard and Stanford found health issues from job stress alone cause more deaths than diabetes, Alzheimer’s, or influenza.
In this age of constant bombardment, the science is clear: if you want your mind and body to last, you’ve got to prioritize giving them a rest. Music is an easy way to take some of the pressure off of all the pings, dings, apps, tags, texts, emails, appointments, meetings, and deadlines that can easily spike your stress level and leave you feeling drained and anxious.
Of the top track, Dr. David Lewis-Hodgson said, “‘Weightless’ was so effective, many women became drowsy and I would advise against driving while listening to the song because it could be dangerous.”
So don’t drive while listening to these, but do take advantage of them:
