Blatant and dishonest propaganda from Bill Nye

So Bill Nye, the elementary “Science Guy” (we prefer the more accurate phrase “Science Lie”), is taking on Patriot Post contributor and veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi. Posing with a fabricated hard copy of a Post publication in his latest video, Nye responds directly to Bastardi’s November column, “Some Questions for Bill Nye Six Years After Our ‘O'Reilly Factor’ Debate.” Nye’s challenge? “Mr. Bastardi, I will bet you $10,000. I predict that the year 2016 will be among the top ten hottest years ever recorded. … I’ll take it up a notch. I’ll bet you another $10,000 that the decade 2010-2020 will prove to be the hottest decade ever recorded.”

Bastardi has been quite public about forecasting a warm 2016 since last year. Nye is apparently unaware of this, so he resorted to a straw man. Why would Joe bet against his own forecast? Note also that Nye did not accept Bastardi’s challenge after the El Niño of 2010. Bottom line: The El Niño spike was predicted well in advance. Isn’t it ironic that Nye is responding to the piece several months later — once the spike occurred as forecasted? He should take the $20,000 he would have lost after 2010 and put it toward helping feed starving people, or the homeless — either is a far more pressing problem. Nobody denies that the climate is changing — in fact, with every breath you exhale, it changes. But on the assumption that global temperatures are warming, the question is, “Why is the climate changing?” Bastardi addresses that question here.

Nye calls Joe a “climate change denier,” which is the Left’s catch-all moniker for those who do not attribute “global warming” exclusively to human activity, or advocate the ecofascist prescriptions for dealing with that change. Recall that when global cooling trends challenged the “global warming” rhetoric of Al Gore and his ecofascists, they adopted the ubiquitous alternative “climate change,” which can encompass the whole range of climate phenomena — colder, hotter, wetter, dryer, calmer, stormier, etc. Of course, the Left’s real underlying political agenda is not about “climate change” at all, but big government control. The real deniers are those who refuse to recognize that the sun, the earth, stochastic events and the very design of the system far outweigh the effects of the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of every 10,000 molecules of air over a 100-year period.

On a final note, Mr. Conservationist printed a faux paper copy of The Patriot Post, which is an online publication. What a waste! Consider all the CO2 that did not get absorbed because a poor tree was butchered for a “climate change” prop.

SOURCE  





Warmists in a tizzy when a leading newspaper breaks ranks

All the critics are long-time Warmists.  Only one has claims to be a climate scientist

Some of the world's most eminent scientists have written to the editor of UK newspaper The Times to complain about its coverage of climate science.

They suggest the newspaper may be unduly influenced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, despite its name, denies humans are causing climate change.

Baron John Krebs, a highly decorated biologist is behind the push, writing that the newspaper has become a "laughing stock" for publishing poor quality science.

"The implications for your credibility extend beyond your energy and climate change coverage," he said in the letter.

"Why should any reader who knows about energy and climate change respect your political analysis, your business commentary, even your sports reports, when in this one important area you are prepared to prioritise the marginal over the mainstream?"

The letter was signed by Krebs and 12 other peers, including:

    Baron Robert 'Bob' May, a former chief scientist of the UK

    Baron Martin Rees of Ludlow, the Astronomer Royal

    Baron Julian Hunt of Chesterton, former chief executive of the British Meteorological Office

    Baron David Puttnam, the Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Chariots of Fire and The Killing Fields

The peers took particular issue with two articles by environment editor Ben Webster, both of which were republished by The Australian.

One article - Planet is not overheating, says Professor - reported on science which was sponsored by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which has five peers of its own on its board of trustees, describes itself as "open-minded on the contested science of global warming".

"[M]any of the sub-standard news stories and opinion pieces appear to concern, in some way, GWPF," it said.

"Whether any newspaper should involve itself repeatedly with any pressure group is a matter for debate; it would be deeply perturbing to find that a paper as eminent as The Times could allow a small NGO, particularly one whose sources of financing are unknown, a high degree of influence."

They said the second article - Scientists 'are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life' - misrepresented good science.

A follow-up opinion piece from a Times columnist "in either ignorance or disregard" failed to mention the scientist's criticism of the Times' report on his work.

"As Editor, you are of course entitled to take whatever editorial line you feel is appropriate. Are you aware, however, how seriously you may be compromising The Times' reputation by pursuing a line that cleaves so tightly to a particular agenda, and which is based on such flimsy evidence?" the peers wrote.

"Climate science has proven remarkably robust to repeated scrutiny, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that climate change and ocean acidification pose serious and increasing risks for the future."

SOURCE  





Natural Gas as Environmental Threat?

The community of Warrenton, Oregon, successfully stonewalled the construction of a terminal that would have exported liquefied natural gas overseas in their town. Since 2012, Oregon LNG wanted to build the terminal and an 87-mile pipeline that would ferry the gas that originated in Canada. But over concerns that the terminal would gas the environment and damage the local economy, local government blocked the proposal that would have created 150 jobs in the area. So Oregon LNG decided to drop the project.

Democrat lawmakers like Sen. Ron Wyden celebrated the job-crushing news. “I am relieved that local voices prevailed,” he said in a statement. But Democrats and the Obama administration were not so hostile to liquefied natural gas in the past. Indeed, they used to see the stuff as a future green energy. In 2012, the Obama administration envisioned vehicles running on liquefied natural gas providing a clean-burning alternative to oil-guzzling trucks. But in a few years, gas has turned from hero to villain to the Left.

“Build the terminal in a more jobs friendly location and let them reap the benefits,” wrote Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw. “The good citizens in Warrenton, meanwhile, can smoke their corn cob pipes and stare out across their empty bay, enjoying the sounds of the wind, the waves, and the unemployed people camping out near the beach.”

Some way or another, this nation needs energy. Maybe the folks of Warrenton would like some wind turbines, that energy source that whines all the time and kills birds.

SOURCE  






Global warming is making weather BETTER: 80 per cent of Americans are benefiting from nicer conditions than 40 years ago

The warming concerned is that which took place in the '80s and '90s

For years scientists studying climate change have issued doom-laden warnings about the catastrophic results of burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But four out of five Americans are experiencing far better weather now than they did forty years ago thanks to global warming, according to a new study.

Researchers say because of this most US citizens believe global warming is beneficial - but they also warn the good weather is not going to last.

Winter temperatures have risen substantially throughout the US since the 1970s, but at the same time, summers have not become more uncomfortable.

This means the weather has shifted toward a temperate year-round climate that most Americans say they prefer.

The study showed that 80 per cent of US citizens live in places where the weather has improved over the last forty years.

This is one of the reasons it has been difficult to motivate US citizens to tackle global warming, the authors of the new study have said.

'Weather patterns in recent decades have been a poor source of motivation for Americans to demand policies to combat the climate change problem,' said Professor Megan Mullin from Duke University, co-author of the study.

Professor Mullin and Professor Patrick Egan from New York University studied 40 years of daily weather data, from 1974 to 2013, on a county-by-county basis to evaluate how the population's experience with weather changed during this period, which is when climate change first emerged as a public issue.

They found that Americans on average have experienced a rise in January maximum temperatures, an increase of 0.58 °C (1.04 °F) per decade. By contrast, daily maximum temperatures in July rose by only 0.07 °C (0.13 °F) per decade.

Humidity in the summer has also declined since the mid 1990s.

This means, winter temperatures have become warmer for virtually all Americans while summer conditions have remained relatively constant.

SOURCE  





Senate Committee Subpoenas EPA Over Gold King Mine Disaster

Senate Indian Affairs Chairman John Barrasso (R,-Wyo.) and Vice Chairman John Tester (D.-Mont.) agreed Wednesday to subpoena Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy or a top aide to appear at an upcoming oversight field hearing on the Gold King Mine disaster scheduled for April 22nd in Phoenix.

The subpoena - the first issued by the committee since its investigation into the activities of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2004 – included Assistant EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus.

The committee said Stanislaus was “invited to testify at the field hearing, but the EPA declined to send him.”

Barrasso pointed out that during her confirmation hearing, McCarthy “agreed under oath” to appear before congressional committees with oversight authority over her agency.

 “It troubles me that this committee had to take the extraordinary step of issuing a subpoena to a confirmed federal official,” Barrasso said Wednesday.

“During the confirmation process, Gina McCarthy agreed under oath that if confirmed, she would appear before congressional committees with respect to her responsibilities.

“She further agreed under oath to ensure testimony in other documents would be provided to congressional committees in a timely manner.

"Despite the sworn testimony, the EPA refused to provide any witnesses – any witnesses - to the committee field hearing to be held on April 22, 2016 in Phoenix, Arizona,” Barrasso said.

“That hearing would continue our oversight on the EPA’s response to the devastating toxic spill that it had caused, and of the agency’s responsibility to the Indian communities that it had harmed.

“I am troubled further that the EPA would disregard such failures and attempt to avoid the responsibility by refusing to appear before the committee and answer questions.

"This sort of behavior is unbecoming of any federal official and won’t be tolerated,” he continued. “The subpoena will be served on the EPA later today.”

Mike Danylak, the committee’s press secretary, confirmed to CNSNews.com that the subpoenas were served to McCarthy and Stanislaus on Wednesday afternoon, but that as of noon on Friday, the committee had received no response.

Last August 5th, EPA released three million gallons of toxic wastewater from the abandoned Gold King Mine, contaminating rivers and streams in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah as well as lands belonging to the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Reservation.

In a March 16 statement, Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye said that “the Navajo Nation has suffered due to the reckless actions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other responsible parties, and the Obama Administration has turned down virtually every request we have made for greater assistance, each time referring us back to the EPA.”

On Dec. 9, 2015, following the Department of Interior’s (DOI) “technical evaluation” of the spill, Sec. Sally Jewell told Congress that “we did not see any deliberate attempt to breach a mine. It was an accident.” Jewell also said that “EPA’s trying to do a job of cleaning up a problem it did not create.”

However, an investigative report released February 11 by the House Natural Resources Committee “revealed that each of the three reports issued by EPA and DOI in 2015 contains numerous errors and omissions and demonstrably false information… [including the] false claim that the EPA crew was digging high when the plug [sealing the mine] somehow eroded on its own.”

SOURCE  





Prof. Richard Lindzen Weighs in on Climate Change, Risking Prison Term?

Whom should one consult on the science behind climate-change alarmism? Maybe Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”? Or maybe Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Physics?

If you’re a politician, activist, or reporter (Group 3 as Lindzen calls it in the video), you should probably stick with Bill Nye.

Granted, Nye’s credentials aren’t nearly as impressive as Lindzen’s, and he often behaves like a rodeo clown, but he buys in to the climate change hysteria that is so beloved by politicians who seek wealth and power, activists who need a grand cause to champion, and those media that thrive on doomsday headlines.

In fact, Nye says he’s comfortable with jail terms for those who dare to challenge climate change “science”!

On the other hand, if you haven’t bought in to climate-change hysteria just yet, you may want to hear first from Lindzen in the Prager University 5-minute video below. After that, if you still want to jump on the climate-change bandwagon, thereby avoiding a Bill-Nye-recommended jail sentence, at least you’ll have done it with your eyes open.

In one sense, I suppose Lindzen has been a fool. He could have sacrificed his integrity long ago by falsifying data, perverting its interpretation, and/or outright lying in print in exchange for massive federal grants to “prove” the mythical “scientific consensus” about anthropogenic climate change (aka global warming).

Sadly, Lindzen has allowed himself to be swayed by hard data, objective analysis, and the scientific method. Apparently he is among those who insist that:

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. And if it’s science, it isn’t consensus.

Too bad for Prof. Lindzen. He could end up in prison next to the other ‘deniers’.

How about you?



Afterword:

Okay, okay, so this article is kind of sarcastic and silly. Imagine comparing a science clown like Bill Nye to a top-tier atmospheric physicist like Richard Lindzen. No one should take this seriously, right?

Wrong.

See also this link or simply Google “climate change deniers Loretta Lynch” and see what comes up.

This is all deadly serious. The US Attorney General is giving serious consideration to prosecuting real scientists who dare to challenge the “settled science” of climate change. What’s next? Ordinary citizens who ask legitimate questions about it?

If American leftists/neo-Marxists/progressives/statists/Stalinists/Maoists/whatever-ists can criminalize scientific inquiry, what do you think they’ll do with political speech they don’t like?

How about:

Prosecuting Common Core critics for endangering the welfare of minors

Prosecuting Obamacare critics for creating a public health hazard

Prosecuting open border critics for hate speech

And so on, and so on …

SOURCE  

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************