Marc Morano of Climate Depot — a proud cosponsor of our Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago May 21- 23 — shared with us today his observations on the mainstream media’s double standard for tolerating provocative communication strategies when it comes to the climate.
Marc’s views are his own — and, as always with him, an invigorating read. Those who are subject to easily getting the vapors over such things should probably not heed the advice “click to continue” below. For the rest, here is the full-and-raw Marc Morano, who called out — and answered — some egregious examples of global warming alarmists using “provocative communications” about skeptics that the MSM seems to have missed:
[click to continue…]
“Green Power Failure” is a May 10, 2012 article by Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon for Canada’s Financial Post.
The article is a warning for the United States of pitfalls from adopting renewable electricity sources of solar and wind. Quoting Mr. Solomon, ”Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.”
Mr. Solomon then addresses situations in the U. K., Germany, Denmark and other countries which have adopted sizable amounts of solar and wind electricity generation that has led to electricity rates so high that 15 percent of households or more are in “fuel poverty”–ten percent or more of household income goes to electricity or gas. Many of these countries pay electricity rates triple the U. S. average.
[click to continue…]
Those words, on a banner that hung in the Mission Evaluation Room at the Space Center in Houston, continues to be imprinted on the minds of many of the ex-NASA scientists that are now retired but certainly not expired! (Some of them, including me, will be at The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago May 21 – 23.)
Their thirst for another mission together has caused them to develop a team committed to evaluating another important challenge; that of trying to examine the reliability of the data available to the two sides of the global warming or global climate change “debate.”
They know it is not the amount of data but the reliability of the data that counts. Accustomed to weighing life and death situations, their assessment and risk determination skills have been well tested. Today they are able to bring a refreshing level of objectivity to evaluating what the two sides bring to the table because none of the team members are receiving pay from NASA.
[click to continue…]
According to reports from the media, a new study from the U.S. Geological Survey have scientifically linked hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” to the recent rise in Midwest earthquakes. But the lead author of the study, Bill Ellsworth, went on live TV last week and announced the study does not support that claim, and that the media is misinforming the public about the study.
If you don’t have time to watch the interview, Ellsworth states that the only established link with earthquake activity is with the disposal of the leftover waste water after the natural gas is released, which is likely where the misunderstanding could have occurred. However, this link has been known for decades, and in most cases is not a problem, and in the few that are, are easily accommodated with straightforward solutions.
Ellsworth’s effort to clarify the epidemic spread of misinformation is heartening, although likely not to be too effective with a liberally-biased media. But if nothing else, reveals which of our political leaders are susceptible to being misled.
As most are aware, December 2012 marks the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 17 Mission. In this regard, I am please to draw your attention to an article by William Mellberg that describes his eyewitness impressions surrounding the launch of that mission on December 7, 1972. (Video here.)
This article contains one of the best descriptions of a Saturn V launch that you will find.
From Bill Mellberg:
BTW, Dr. Schmitt opines that my article “contains one of the best descriptions of a Saturn V launch that you will find.” Of course, he’s referring to the “spectator” perspective. Dr. Schmitt’s forthcoming book about Apollo 17 will offer his memories of that night. He was sitting atop the Saturn V!
[click to continue…]
What if fresh water like oil was treated as a critical economic resource in 1960? What if billions of dollars had been invested in ground water exploration over the past 50 years? What if geologists had considered new paradigms and exploration technologies to discover and develop ground water?
Instead of believing that ground water resources increased by zero percent in the past 50 years, an ocean of water could have been discovered as has been the case in the oil and gas fields of the nation.
There is a new paradigm which we call the “megawatershed,” and it has succeeded in uncovering large new reserves of water in many parts of the world in recent decades. As in the oil patch, private enterprise lead the way taking the risks and being open to innovation.
Conventional wisdom that has kept ground water development in the 19th century assumes the earth’s crust is effectively impermeable and not a significant source of renewable sustainable fresh water.
The megawatershed model recognizes that Earth’s mountains and the crust in general are pervasively fractured, hydraulically conductive and exposed to water infiltration, especially in mountainous areas where high rainfall occurs and bedrock is most fractured.
[click to continue…]
To me, science is a process of continuous discovery. So when casted alongside of ideology let alone political ideology it doesn’t exactly pass the smell test. Science ebbs and flows with new ideas, innovation, technology, intellect, verve and excitement, and passionate curiosity. It requires an openness of mind and heart and debate is its most trusted ally.
Among The Heartland Institutes’ many recent disappoints is any prominence that Peter Gleick (and ostensively his supporters and sympathizers) once received as a thoughtful scientist(s) will be forever tainted. More is the pity, thoughtful debate took a nose dive.
Heartland values rigorous and honest debate. Gleick’s action clearly did not demonstrate a retaliatory frustration in opposing scientifically challenging literature rather it promulgated a vulgar immaturity.
Too often organizations are attacked for preserving the privacy of its donors, and crying foul over anonymity is nothing more than a “Red Herring” when either fearing or ignoring debate, and only serves to reduce the space where legitimate refuting science can be heard from both sides of the issue.
[click to continue…]
NOTE: by the American Council on Science and Health.
Andrew Wakefield, the original architect of the phony autism-vaccine scare, has had the chutzpah to file a defamation suit against the journal BMJ, its editor, and a journalist for printing a scathing series of articles last January that attacked him for the ethical flaws in his retracted paper.
In fact, the journal and the writer didn’t stop at that accusation. After comparing Wakefield’s own documents with the published study, they discovered discrepancies between Wakefield’s results and the actual medical histories of the children involved, that bordered on fraud. The articles also suggested that Wakefield deliberately altered facts about the patients’ records in order to support his conclusion, additionally noting that he had financial ties to lawyers aiming to sue vaccine producers.
Back in 1998, Wakefield published a study in The Lancet claiming the childhood MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccination caused symptoms of autism in 12 children. Although those versed in the scientific method roundly criticized the obvious flaws in the study when it first appeared, The Lancet’s editor, Dr. Richard Horton, justified its publication as a “stimulant for debate.” Although the co-authors denounced the study when they learned the facts of Wakefield’s manipulations and ethical lapses, it tookThe Lancet until 2010 to officially retract this flawed study.
[click to continue…]
On the orders of President Theodore Roosevelt, from December 16, 1907, to February 2, 1909, two squadrons of naval vessels circumnavigated the globe in a display of the United States’ growing naval power, and consequential increased global influence. This action, taken by what was known as the “Great White Fleet” would serve as a precursor to decades of political and military dominance by the United States on the world stage.
Today, the need for a powerful naval force has never been greater, and with constant innovation, the United States Navy continues to be a world leader in the pursuit of freedom and all those who threaten it. This continued dominance is achieved through perpetual increases in technology, not only in weaponry, but in the means of powering our fleet — from coal, to steam, to nuclear power, the development and advancement of fuels has been closely tied to the larger abilities of the U.S. naval force.
A recent undertaking by the Department of Defense, however, raises questions as to whether the military’s commitment to innovation may be endangered by political pandering — especially in the face of the announcements earlier this year that 3,000 sailors nationwide, approximately one out of every one hundred people in the force overall, will be forced to leave the Navy. The creation of a so-called “Great Green Fleet,” a series of improvements designed to make the military more “eco-friendly,” seems a contradiction in the face of increased Department of Defense cuts (a possible trillion dollars over the next ten years).
[click to continue…]
Those of you in the oil and gas industry are no doubt familiar with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that fracking is a potential source of groundwater contamination, and that a moratorium on the use of fracking should be enacted until EPA can study it to death. (Note: For lay people, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a technique used to increase oil and gas yields in petroleum-bearing formations. It involves injecting fluids at high pressure into the formation to increase its transmission properties.)
This step—one EPA has been hinting about for months—will be another nail in the energy industry’s coffin if its representatives do not step up and oppose this utterly unwarranted accusation. Will you rise to the challenge?
[click to continue…]
