Sowell: the catchwords “climate change deniers” reveals nothing but a political crusade

By Thomas Sowell – Re-Blogged From The American Spectator

Fact-Free Politics: From Climate Change to Trickle Down

Empty catchwords reveal a mind that’s unwilling to analyze and debate.

In this era when there has been more information available to more people than at any time in the past, it is also true that there has been more misinformation from more different sources than ever. We are not talking about differences of opinion or inadequate verification, but about statements and catchwords in utter defiance of facts.

Among the most popular current catchwords are “climate change deniers.” Stop and think. Have you ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?

Continue reading

Advertisements

Methods and Tricks Used to Create and Perpetuate the Human-caused Global Warming Deception

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

These opening comments will trigger knee-jerk responses from proponents of the human-caused global warming deception. Just saying President Trump is sufficient to trigger them. However, when I add that he handled the Lesley Stahl CBS interview well, the comments will appear without them reading any further. Poke them, and they blindly respond triggered by the tunnel-vision of political ideology and the source of their funding.

Continue reading

Dilbert 1, Scientists 0

By Ross McKitrick – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Click image for the full comic

A communications group at Yale University has put out a video that seems to be a rebuttal to a Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams poking fun at climate scientists and their misplaced confidence in models. The video is full of impressive-looking scientists talking about charts and data and whatnot. It probably cost a lot to make and certainly involved a lot of time and effort. The most amazing thing, however, is that it actually proves the points being made in the Dilbert cartoon. Rather than debunking the cartoon, the scientists acted it out in slow motion.

Continue reading

Scientists vs Charlatans

[A Congressional Committee met to discuss The Scientific Method. The following is part of an essay reviewing the testimony. – Bob]

By Leo Goldstein – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

…. There are at least two obstacles that prevent Republican statesmen from understanding that climate alarmism is completely wrong on natural sciences.

The big obstacle: managing bodies of the NAS, formerly respected academic societies, and foreign national academies adopted statements that either outright support or do not contradict climatist pseudo-science. This is an important fact. Of course, there are two causes for that: internal corruption that has been happening over decades and pressure from the Obama administration and its counterparts in other Western countries. Democrat Congresspersons might congratulate themselves for their contribution to shutting up opposition views. But it is hard to convince Republicans that this happened in front of their eyes and under the watch of many of them.

Continue reading

Government Actions and Basic Premises

cropped-bob-shapiro.jpg   By Bob Shapiro

Many times, reversing your basic premise can give you valuable insights. Let’s look at oil, religion, and the US Constitution, as well as our political leaders actions in these spheres.

Looking around the world, we see numerous oil exporting countries who also are avowed enemies of the US, either outright like Venezuela and Iran, or surreptitiously like Saudi Arabia. While in the past, OPEC members have curtailed production to keep prices high, now they are in “pedal to the metal” mode, producing as much oil as they can, and have pushed the price so low, many analysts are declaring the death of American production.

Our leaders, most obviously President Obama, have been treating OPEC with kid gloves, while at the same time they are in an undeclared war on US produced energy – mostly of the fossil fuel variety. How might these seemingly at odds actions make sense together?

I expect that most Americans would believe, as a basic premise, that the elected President of the United States is working for the benefit of the American people. So, for the purposes of this mental exercise, let us assume the exact opposite – that President Obama is working AGAINST the best interest of America.

It is a well established fact that the availability of cheap, reliable energy is very well correlated to growth in a country’s Economy, to the people’s Standard of Living, and to the general Well-Being of all who live in that country.

Continue reading

Climategate & Investigations of IPCC and CRU: Was There a Pattern of Cover Up?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Every time a serious threat to IPCC climate science appears, whether scientific or political, diversions and counterattacks are implemented. It usually involves people and agencies at the highest levels, with dissemination and support through major media outlets. One of the earliest examples involved changes to the 1995 IPCC Report Chapter 8 comments agreed on in committee. The response is proportional to the political damage they perceive. Avery and Singer noted about Chapter 8 changes,

Continue reading

A Global Warming Allegory

Guest essay by William M. Briggs, statistician. Reposted from his blog wmbriggs.com
and From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
A very odd thing happened in Science. Turns out a famous weatherman has been forecasting highs in the 60s then 70s for New York City all winter long. But the temperature never rose above the single digits, teens, twenties, and thirties.

One day a writer at the New York Post wrote an article telling people not to trust the weatherman, who, it turned out, had issued a prediction for the following day for a “High of 80!”

Climatologists stationed at NASA on the Upper West Side were incensed that a non-scientist would interfere with Science. So the climatologists

 

spoke with the weatherman, who said he was basing his predictions on a sophisticated computer model. The weatherman admitted his difficulties, but said his model would have performed great if only he had better measures of surface snow cover.

Continue reading