Category Archives: Environment

Climate Debate And Pope Francis’ Encyclical On The Environment


A debate about the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) took place recently between Carol Andress, of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Marc Morano of the Climate Depot Blog. The EDF website lists Ms Andress as having expertise in “Climate Change, U.S, Congress, air quality and U.S. climate policy”.

There are two themes during this debate; one is the credibility of the science supporting the CAGW and the other is Pope Francis’ expected papal encyclical on the environment.

The first theme was entirely won by Marano. This has been the consistent outcome of these debates between warmers and skeptics.   It is difficult for skeptics to get a warmer to debate anymore.  Because Ms Andress is considered an expert by the EDF, I am  further persuaded  that the EDF, as an organization, is weak on science as are most of the environmentally focused NGOs.  While nothing Ms Andress said with regard to the second theme was persuasive, the Pope appears to have been taken in. There is little likelihood at this point that he will change his mind.

Watch the debate on this YouTube video–it will initially open up with what looks to be another topic, but give it several seconds and it will switch to the debate.  The total time for the debate is about 15 minutes.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cold Weather Causes 20 Times More Deaths Than Hot Weather


The science deniers* (aka warmers) tell us that a major reason to fear global warming is because so many people will die from the heat. But would an increase in global temperatures actually reduce the number of coldweatherimagesdeaths? According to study published in The Lancet of over 74million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries, cold weather kills 20 times as many people as does hot weather. On balance, warmer weather would probably reduce the number of weather related deaths.

If you are not familiar with The Lancet, Wiki describes it this way:

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world’s oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.[2] In the 2013 Journal Citation Reports, The Lancet‍ ’ s impact factor was ranked second among general medical journals, (at 39.207), after The New England Journal of Medicine (54,420)“

 ScienceDaily.com summarized the Lancet study as follows:

The study analysed over 74 million (74,225,200) deaths between 1985 and 2012 in 13 countries with a wide range of climates, from cold to subtropical. Data on daily average temperature, death rates, and confounding variables (eg, humidity and air pollution) were used to calculate the temperature of minimum mortality (the optimal temperature), and to quantify total deaths due to non-optimal ambient temperature in each location. The researchers then estimated the relative contributions of heat and cold, from moderate to extreme temperatures.

Around 7.71% of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around 3% in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11% in China, Italy, and Japan. Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29% of all deaths), while just 0.42% of all deaths were attributable to heat.

The study also found that extreme temperatures were responsible for less than 1% of all deaths, while mildly sub-optimal temperatures accounted for around 7% of all deaths — with most (6.66% of all deaths) related to moderate cold.

According to Dr Gasparrini, “Current public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimizing the health consequences of heat waves. Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.”

 Study upon study in the past have arrived at this same conclusion although this may be the most comprehensive of such studies. No doubt the science deniers will continue to deny these facts.

cbdakota

*I use the word “deniers” reluctantly. However the catastrophic man-made global warming folks,  have recently undertaken a plan to fully brand all skeptics as “deniers.”  Maybe an unwise choice, but should we fight fire with fire?

 

 

 

 

10th International Conference On Climate Change—June 11 & 12 in Washington DC


This year the International Conference On Climate Change will be held in Washington DC on the 11th and 12th of June.   The presenters are Major League skeptics. Among the panel participants are Singer, Idso, Monckton, Legates, Fred SingerSoon, Briggs, Michaels, Watts, Carter, Loehle, Ball, etc..  The keynote speakers are Senator Jim Inhofe, Journalist Mark Steyn, Representative Lamar Smith and Princeton Professor William Happer.

S. Fred Singer

Full information, regarding registration, location, program & speakers and hotel reservations can be found by clicking here.

Continue reading

Unrealistic Predictions FromThe US Global Change Research Program


On April 7, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) released a draft for public review of its upcoming Climate & Health Assessment. No citations or quotations from the draft are permitted. Public comments are solicited with a requirement that they arrive prior to 7 June.  The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is preparing comments to be presented to USGCRP. If the USGCRP failed models6a010536b58035970c0168e987ee9d970c-400wioperates like the EPA, any comment that does not concur with their already made conclusions will be ignored.

SEPP have made some preliminary observations in their TWTW postings. The following is from the 16 May issue:

Even though the US government spent over $35 billion on climate science research from fiscal year 1993 to FY 2013, federal agencies have failed to create a global climate model, verified and validated, for predicting future temperatures. Without a valid climate model, temperature forecasts are highly speculative. Thus, the core of the entire USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment is speculative. Labeling such statements with terms such as Very Likely or High Confidence is pure fiction. There is no objective method to assess likelihood or confidence. Further, there is no indication that government agencies are attempting to create a valid climate model that has predictive power (skill).”

Continue reading

John Kerry Again Proves His Ignorance


Why am I picking on John Kerry again?  Partly because he is such an easy target but mostly I want people to be aware of how unaware he is.  In 2009,  the then Senator Kerry said that the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. As you know this prediction was very wrong.  He knew this because he claimed to be up-to-date with all the real science as provided by the real scientists. Kerry chose to lecture Senator James Inhofe, someone he said failed to get it when it comes to global warming and in this case Arctic Sea ice.  Watch this Youtube to see the “haughty”  Senator in action:

By the way, Jim Inhofe is probably the most knowledgeable man in Congress with regard to global warming science.

Kerry is the chief US negotiator in the talks with Iran about Iran’s program to make nuclear bombs. God help us.  And he seems to be the President’s lead man in the Global Warming talks scheduled for Paris this coming December.  IMHO, he is in way over his head, but he is so egotistical, he thinks he knows it all.   Lecturing Senator Inhofe!!!

Look at these two posting to see how misinformed he can be, even when he has a prepared speech.   Click here and here.

cbdakota

 

 

 

Skeptic Reference Sources—1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers


This is the second posting of skeptic reference sources. This time it is “1350+ Peer- Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”.   The papers have been sorted by categories to Cooling_is_the_New_Warmingmake the desired documents easily located. It is interesting that PopularTechnology.net supplied “Rebuttals to Criticisms” in the beginning. These are also a leg-up for you in discussions with warmers.

Click here to enter the PopularTechnology.net website.

cbdakota

Skeptic Reference Sources–Part 1


There are several excellent sources for Skeptics. This posting provides a the sunsource for Solar Research Papers.   The amount of Sun based research may surprise you, because the Warmers continue to tell us that the Sun is not important.

Some of the research is readily available and some is behind paywalls. But I suspect that just looking at the available research will occupy you for some long time.   The source is Club du Soleil  Click here to see  this source.

There are several additional resources that I will post soon.

cbdakota