Showing posts with label junk science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label junk science. Show all posts

Friday, July 1, 2016

A group of Nobel Prize-winners have signed onto a campaign demanding activist groups and their seemingly willing accomplices in the press refrain from spreading misinformation about the science behind genetically modified foods.



"The media very often likes to present a supposedly balanced argument," Sir Richard Roberts, who is spearheading the campaign along with fellow Nobel Prize-winner Philip Sharp, told the Washington Examiner's media desk Thursday.

"They present it as though it's a 50/50 deal, rather than the fact that it's a 99-to-1 percent. The media have to do a better job. They just have to do a better job of estimating where is the consensus and if you want to bring another view in, you have to point out it's a minority view," he added.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore Film Still Alarmingly Inaccurate



Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

...Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy....

...Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow...

...Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released....

...The North Pole Still Has Ice...

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”...

Thursday, March 19, 2015

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, SUPERMARKET TABLOID?

Yet another once respectable institution goes silly and trendy. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 3.19.15

Move over National Enquirer, here comes the National Geographic to supermarket checkouts. At least that’s the way it looks judging from the cover of its March issue.

A big headline proclaims, “The War on Science,” over of a photo of a workman constructing a setting for a Moonwalk. All this is accompanied by a list of five things, ranging from one about which there is much serious skepticism (“Climate Change”) to the very far-fetched (“The Moon Landing Was Fake”). It appears the NG left out those favorites that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld delivered the explosives that brought down the World Trade Center towers and that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Another clue that the venerable Geographic may be planning to go head-to-head with the National Enquirer is that the story behind the sensational headline is a nothing burger, like such supermarket tabloid favorites as “Octogenarian Queen Pregnant” and “Film Star Charges, ‘My Father-in-Law Sired My Child.’” It turns out there is nothing to those stories either.

For decades the National Geographic Society has engaged in serious exploration and scientific inquiry and has earned the confidence of thousands of members/readers. That makes it worrisome that key people there seem to have become followers of the concept of Deep Ecology proclaimed by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1973.

The concept holds that all life, from human to dust mites, should be safe to live and pursue happiness. Although we humans are the only species with the ability to reason, this gives no special privileges; rather, the responsibility for all the others. To do this, we must not exploit the earth’s resources nor overpopulate it. Naess claimed the earth’s population should be reduced from six billion to about 100 million.

This worldview gave early environmentalists something much bigger to worry about than the shrinking habitat of a particular wild animal. It gave them the basis for a secular religion in which the noble cause of biodiversity could only be achieved by reducing industrial production and commerce and, along with these, steady downward pressure on standards of living and population.

“Climate Change” fits the religion neatly. If projections herald natural calamities—sea-level cities underwater; polar ice caps melting—fifty years from now, well, we had better do something right now to prevent it.

It is scientists who are making the projections, so bear in mind these are the computer result of assumptions fed into them. Some of those scientists are living off grants from sources that already believe in the Deep Ecology theory. The insistence that long-range “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” is “settled science” is an ideological/political claim, not a scientific one. To buttress this insistence, however, the proponents treat weather aberrations as evidence of their claims.

The remedy, according to the National Geographic and others, is to reduce the presumed cause of Climate Change, carbon emissions. These forces believe that the problem is caused exclusively by human activity; therefore, it must change. To do this, the current administration is clearly at war with energy production and, through regulatory fiat, uses of water.

The Geographic’s March cover story, while not living up to the cover promise of a “War on Science,” is filled with by-the-way reminders of the need to “combat” Climate Change. Yet, the record contradicts the magazine’s sky-is-falling scenario. According to an Oxford University database, the death rate from natural disasters such as floods, extreme temperature, storms, and droughts has gone from 12 annually per 100,000 people in the first half of the 20th century to .38 by 2010.

For the sake of its credibility on other topics, the National Geographic should apply some scientific skepticism to the often wild claims of the priests and acolytes of the Deep Ecology religion.

Meanwhile, what’s next for the National Geographic? Rumor has it that the April cover may feature a photo of a hospital door and the sign, “Maternity Ward—No Admittance,” along with this headline: “Woman Gives Birth to Two-Headed Calf as Icebergs Melt.”
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”

Friday, May 2, 2014

“How much longer can the IPCC maintain the charade? How long before the IPCC and its machinations are understood by enough leaders to elicit some backbone? It is incredible that the IPCC and their manipulation of climate science continue to drive world energy and economic policies. How many more people must starve and economies collapse before this most egregious exploitation driven by environmentalists is stopped?

EXPOSING CLIMATE SCIENCE CORRUPTION - Jay Lehr/Human Events

Review of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, by Tim Ball, Ph.D. (Stairway Press 2014), 298 pages, ISBN- 978-0988877740

The debate is over, if there ever was one. Tim Ball argues, with overwhelming evidence, the asserted global warming crisis has been an unmitigated fraud perpetrated by people who no longer have the right to be called scientists. Their collective goal has been to alter society’s future while enriching their own personal lives.

Tracking Major Players
Ball’s book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, is divided into 13 chapters, each of which opens with a picture of a major player in the historical drama of the corruption of climate science. A few are good guys, such as Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Vaclav Klaus. Most, however, are villains, including the likes of Maurice Strong, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Al Gore.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Unmasking the junk science behind the #BanBossy campaign

“ban bossy,” a new feminist campaign started by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, uses ancient surveys and misleading facts to claim the word “bossy” hurts girls. - Ashe Schow/Washington Examiner

And, as you might expect, the claims don’t support the campaign’s mission.

Claim 1: “By middle school, girls are 25 percent less likely than boys to say they like taking the lead.”

This study was conducted between 1992 and 1997, so it's already out of date....

In a much more recent study, called “Change It Up,” girls were more likely than boys to say they wanted to be a leader....

The study never says what percentage of boys thought they could learn leadership skills or already possessed them. When asked about the missing information, Kamla Modi, an analyst at the Girl Scout Research Institute (which commissioned the study), said the reason boys weren’t included in that question is because “there is not a leadership problem for men in this country, but there is a leadership problem for women.”...

Sheryl Sandberg said she was called bossy once and it really affected her. Maybe it did, but she’s a billionaire now and the chief operating officer of Facebook, so it couldn’t have hurt too badly. How did she actually deal with it? By kicking butt and taking names – that’s how. Why isn’t she teaching girls that?

Dear Sheryl Sandberg: There Are Far Worse Things Than Being Called Bossy - Micheline Maynard/Forbes
I’ve got news for her: there are far worse things for women than being called bossy. And, I don’t think banning bossy does much to help young girls, either.

For one, bossy isn’t only a word that applies to women. It’s gender neutral. There are plenty of bossy men out there, too. Bossy is bossy — dictatorial, unyielding, telling people what to do and expecting them to do it without any input.

Bossy is not the same thing as being a leader, even though Sandberg might view it that way. Leadership is an entirely different category. There are bosses who are leaders, and bosses who are bossy. We’ve all worked for them. We know the difference....

But, we don’t have to ban words to make young girls feel better. Instead, teach them to believe in possibilities, no matter what anyone says about them, and keep finding ways to move forward.
Celebs sign on to campaign to ban the word 'bossy' - FOX
“The word ‘bossy’ is more PC gibberish. It demonizes an ordinary word without really putting much thought behind it. Instead of banning, we should be promoting positives like leadership, ambition, faith and self-respect,” Katie Yoder, staff writer for the Media Research Center, told FOX411. “This is not about female empowerment, it’s about indoctrination. Their strategy is to make young women play the role of victims, which undermines instead of helping them.”

Friday, January 10, 2014

‘Never seen anything this bankrupt of thought’: Joe Bastardi slams White House ‘science’ initiative





It’s as if they’re back to “global cooling” but have sold “warming” for so long they’ve got to convince people the cold is hot, or something. - Twitchy

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled against Drakes Bay Oyster Co. It also denied an injunction that would have let the Lunny family continue to operate until they exhausted their appeal options.


Raw Deal, Part II - Jillian Kay Melchior/National Review

It was never really a fair fight. The federal government threw millions of taxpayer dollars into its legal assault on the oyster farm. The Lunny family, which was simply trying not to go bankrupt, couldn’t afford to fight back. They were represented pro bono by Cause of Action, a government-accountability group that stepped up when it heard about their plight.

It was David fighting Goliath, and this time, Goliath won. The ruling essentially ruins the Lunny family. They’ll have to kill off their inventory of baby oysters, valued at nearly $5 million. They’ll be left with a $300,000 loan and no way to repay it. They’ll almost certainly have to declare bankruptcy. And they’ll lose their multi-generational cattle farm, which they used as collateral to clean and restore the land for the oyster company.

The ruling is also bad news for their 31 full-time employees, who will all lose their jobs. Fifteen had homes on the farm. Like the Lunny family, they now have less than a month to find a new place to live.

Kevin Lunny, the patriarch and owner, said it best in December: “It will completely destroy us.” That’s your federal government at work.

Raw Deal - Bad science and contempt for the law allow the government to destroy a family oyster farm.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

OYSTER COMPANY: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S FAULTY SCIENCE SHUT US DOWN

A family oyster business recently shut down by the Obama administration’s demand that the public land on which it operates revert to a wilderness area is suing the federal government for what they say is an illegal taking of the property. - Audrey Hudson/Human Events

“Our family business is not going to sit back and let the government steamroll our community, which has been incredibly supportive of us,” Drakes Bay Oyster Company said in a statement.

Lawyers for the company, which is situated in Drakes Estero, a tidal inlet off Drakes Bay, will ask a judge in the Northern District of California’s District Court for an injunction on Friday to block the eviction while the lawsuit progresses....

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands, said the process used by federal officials to make the determination was “completely unacceptable.”

“I am extremely troubled by just about every aspect of this situation. There was clearly an effort on behalf of the Department of Interior (DOI) to manipulate data in order to derive a certain outcome,” Bishop said.

“It not only calls into question the integrity of the environmental review process but that of the DOI as a whole. When all components of this process are examined, you see that Secretary Salazar’s misguided decisions are arbitrary and based on a whim. Jobs and livelihoods are being destroyed solely because the Department of Interior knowingly created a fraudulent scientific review to justify a predetermined, ideological course of action,” Bishop said.

Critics of the closure also include Republican Rep. Darrell Issa and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who also says the findings for closing the oyster business was exaggerated.

The National Park Service purchased the land in 1972 that housed the oyster operation and offered the family a 40-year lease to continue operations across 1,000 acres. The company was seeking to have their lease extended.