Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #385

The Week That Was: November 9, 2019, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards.

You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”

“In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

Number of the Week: Down 66%. From 1.9 billion to 650 million.

The Buck Stops Here: President Harry Truman (1945 to 1953) was not well liked by the eastern political establishment, either Republican or Democrat. He was considered ill-educated, crude, and ill-suited for the job. Yet he was well read in history. He was ill-prepared for assuming office on April 12, 1945 because President Roosevelt hid his illness and did not include Truman in important discussions.

Continue reading

Modern Scientific Controversies Part 7: The Meat War

By Kip Hansen  —  Re-Blogged From WUWT

Prologue:  This is part of  an occasional  series of essays that discusses ongoing scientific controversies, a specific type of which are often referred to in the science press and elsewhere as “Wars” – for instance, one essay covered the “Salt Wars1 and another the “Obesity War” — and one which appears most commonly here at this web site: “The Climate Wars”.    The purpose of the series is to illuminate the similarities and differences involved in these ongoing controversies, as part of the social culture of science in our modern world.

This essay specifically covers the furor over a six-paper body of work that appeared recently in The Annals of Internal Medicine reviewing the evidence used to make public health recommendations for amounts of red and processed meat in the human diet.

In The Meat War, the headlines scream out:

The_Meat_War

Continue reading

Epidemiology, Diet Soda and Climate Science

By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Epidemiologyis the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations. “

“It is the cornerstone of public health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare.”

featured_image_epidemiology

Continue reading

Noble Cause Corruption

By Dr Paul Rossiter – Re-Blogged From WUWT

In an earlier posting (WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/understanding-the-climate-movement-the-impotence-of-science/) I referred to the work of Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) in helping to understand how the climate debate was just a Trojan horse being exploited for a much wider social change agenda being pursued by globalists and the socialist Left. In that article I alluded to some of the drivers that are enabling the movement, including Noble Cause Corruption and personal or corporate financial gain. Here I explore further the role of Noble Cause Corruption. While regular followers of WUWT will be familiar with some of the content, I think that pulling it together makes a compelling case.

Continue reading

Unfounded Fear of Polar Bear Catastrophe

Re-Blogged From Polar Bear Science

Misplaced eco-anxiety that kids have about polar bears starts with activist biologists like Steven Amstrup, spokesperson for an organization devoted to raising climate change alarm – and media outlets like The Guardian who help them spread fears unsupported by scientific evidence.

kaktovik-ak-fat-adult-male-polar-bear-mid-september-2019_ed-boudreau-photo-permission-to-use-e1569820166992

Fat healthy polar bear male at Kaktovik, Alaska in the Southern Beaufort Sea, September 2019, Ed Boudreau photo, with permission.

You can’t get much more over the top than these statements from Amstrup today but read carefully: it’s either opinion or factual aspects of polar bear life (“we know that the bears aren’t feeding”) made to sound like new, terrifying developments that can be blamed on climate change.

Continue reading

Understanding the Climate Movement

By Dr Paul Rossiter. – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Like many other ethical and well-meaning scientists, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the climate “science” debate. By resorting to rigorous measurement and analysis of real data, we have a reasonable (but perhaps naïve) expectation that the facts will determine the outcome of the AGW argument. And yet, despite the huge amount of information available, much of it through sites such as WUWT, it appears that the popular debate is clearly being won by the alarmists. Seemingly reputable organisations like IPCC, WHO, WWF, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, EPA keep issuing reports heralding pending climate doom that appear to be at odds with any unbiased examination of the facts. And when they do, they are immediately picked up by an opportunistic mainstream press and amplified through social media, leading to widespread fear amongst the population, clearly evident in the recent “strikes for the climate”. Ill-informed adolescents become the new Messiahs, preaching the climate doom gospel and given standing ovations in the fact-free climate gab-fests. School children are now the upset victims of corporate (i.e. fossil fuel) greed and government stupidity.

Continue reading