Category Archives: Environment

Trump Ignores Gore And DiCaprio Advice


Several days ago, on one of the mainstream media TV programs,  two taking heads could not understand how President Elect Donald Trump could appoint a man, who is a skeptic,  to be the EPA head. How, they said, could Trump do this when both Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio had just talked to him.  How monumentally ignorant do you have to be to think that those two really know much about climate?

Gore said in his “Inconvenient Truth (Nobel Peace Prize winner, which also tells you how ignorant the Judges are too.) presentation while showing ice core CO2 and temperature data relationship,   that the most important part of the relationship is that “where there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer.”

Gore did not know he was incorrectly reading the ice core chart which actually show that temperature rises and CO2 levels follow.  And when temperature falls, so does the atmospheric CO2 levels.  See  these posting for more on the ice cores data     here   here  and here.

The following excerpt from the “Great Global Warming Swindle” video,  shows Gore misinterpreting the data.

The entire Great Global Warming Swindle video follows this on YouTube if you wish to watch it.  Its worth your time.

So Gore’s most important inconvenient truth was not factual.

cbdakota

 

NYTimes Tries To Spin President Elect Donald Trump’s View On Global Warming.


This afternoon, I received an email from the  Heartland  Institute saying about what I said in my  yesterday’s posting.    It also  clears up the misinformation put out by the New York Times.   The Heartland email:

Can the media greenwash Trump?

Charles,

President-elect Trump met with the New York Times and the media quickly unleashed an interesting spin.

The “breaking” (fake) news story was that Trump had somehow changed his views on global warming.

This would seem a major flip flop after Trump repeatedly said during the campaign he would withdraw the U.S. from the UN’s Paris climate agreement and vowed to set the U.S. back on a pro-energy course.

CFACT’s friend Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, publicized a more detailed transcript of Trump’s meeting with the Times and, lo and behold, what Trump actually said is right in keeping with his campaign pledges.  

Marc Morano posted a detailed analysis at Climate Depot, picked up today by the Drudge Report, to help clear the record about this exchange. As Marc explains:

Continue reading

“Climate Change Action” Least Favored Option In UN Poll Of Over 9 Million People.


 President Elect Donald Trump is expected to defund much of the man-made global warming activity because it’s a theory that is generally unsupported by actual measurements. Although you will continue to read that it is happening and it is going to be catastrophic and if he defunds this research, we will leave a dying planet to our children.  Perhaps, but the supporters of this theory do not seem to come up with anything better than computer forecasts of this upcoming doom. 

The media are also going to tell you that everyone but a few skeptics and President Trump want something done now and money is no object.  But do the people here in the US and across the world really feel that way?  Results from polls and studies show that global warming action is hardly the people choice.   Global warming is almost always the people’s last choice.  The UN polled some 9 million plus people from around the globe asking them what they wanted.  What they said was that they wanted; good education, good health care, jobs, honest government, affordable food, clean water and sanitary conditions, etc.  The final item on the list, #17 was “Action taken on climate change.”  That poll result can be seen by clicking here.

“Action taken on climate change” has a lot of champions all of which are financed by that movement.  “Scientists”, governments, NGO’s, and tyrant rulers of nations looking for ‘free” money from the developed nations don’t want the gravy train to come to a halt.   Think of the loss of income for those groups if the money is spent on the real needs of the globe’s people. 

Continue reading

WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta’s Plot To Damage Scientist Roger Pielke’s Reputation


Roger Pielke, Jr is a professor at Colorado University.  He would probably would call himself a “lukewarmer” a label for those who believe that man has contributed to global warming but not necessarily leading to catastrophic climate in the near future.  He is for a carbon tax which most of we skeptics do not think necessary.

Pielke has said that there is no apparent connection between the rise of atmospheric CO2 and hurricanes, tornados, droughts, or other “weather extremes”’.  The IPCC ( the bible of the catastrophic global warming crowd) has said the same thing—although the warmers don’t like to spread that around.  Pielke has said that the increased cost of weather damage is the result of escalating cost of buildings, houses and the like and the increase of people siting facilities on the coastlines.  Insurance organizations have finally come to that same realization.  So why is it that he has been the subject of scurrilous attacks by people paid to do so by John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (CAP)?    Because he was publishing on sites where people were reading what he said.  He also has testified at Congressional hearings where he discussed his points about “extreme weather”.   Pielke was so severely attacked, including being investigated by a member of Congress, he quit doing his studies about climate. 

Continue reading

President-Elect Donald Trump–Part 1 US Out Of The Paris Agreement


 

The election of Donald Trump has the environmental industry in a panic.  The money and the  one or two  trips each year to exotic places all funded by the US and others, could be severely curtailed.   The scientist, ever eager to produce study results that indicts man—the only way to get study money—, may no longer  be able to afford their lifestyle if the Government slush funds dry up.  And the forecasts of doom in the far-off future proudly produced by some computer, could be ignored and there goes the forecasters claim to fame. 

un-building

Continue reading

Should Anyone Believe This New Arctic Sea Ice Total Melt Prediction?


 

The Science News recently posted a new study titled “Observed Arctic Sea-Ice Loss Directly Follows Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions”.  Well, blaming CO2 is not new and CO2 has been the villain in many previous reports about the loss of Arctic sea ice.   This study says the ice will be gone by 2040 or so.   It is based on the author’s new computer model program.

arctic-sea-ice

Al Gore is the warmer’s 800 lb gorilla. How do I know this?  Because Leonardo DiCaprio, the Hollywood jetsetter, is reported to have said he had a talk with Gore and that is what convinced him to become an active spokesman for the catastrophic global warming theory.

Continue reading

GMCs—Part 2—Are They “Frankenfoods”?


 

The benefits are numerous but even so, there is considerable opposition to Genetically Modified Crops (GMC).  Is this opposition science based or is based upon intuition/emotion?  My previous posting “Genetically Modified Crops–Part 1—Are They Beneficial?  enumerates the substantial economic and environmental benefits and the scientific studies that have concluded that GMCs are as safe as unmodified crops.

Corn grows near a barn . MADATORY CREDIT Ken Kashian

Corn grows near a barn . MADATORY CREDIT Ken Kashian

The Scientific American posting by Stefaan Blancke titled “Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says They Are Safe” gives us some answers .    

The author says:

Psychological essentialism, for instance, makes us think of DNA as an organism’s “essence” – an unobservable and immutable core that causes the organism’s behaviour and development and determines its identity. As such, when a gene is transferred between two distantly related species, people are likely to believe that this process will cause characteristics typical of the source organism to emerge in the recipient. For example, in an opinion survey in the United States, more than half of respondents said that a tomato modified with fish DNA would taste like fish (of course, it would not).

Essentialism clearly plays a role in public attitudes towards GMOs. People are typically more opposed to GM applications that involve the transfer of DNA between two different species (“transgenic”) than within the same species (“cisgenic”). Anti-GMO organizations, such as NGOs, exploit these intuitions by publishing images of tomatoes with fish tails or by telling the public that companies modify corn with scorpion DNA to make crispier cereals.”

The author says that intuitions about purposes and intentions also have an impact on people’s thinking about GMO.  

“In the context of opposition to GMOs, genetic modification is deemed “unnatural” and biotechnologists are accused of “playing God”. The popular term “Frankenfood” captures what is at stake: by going against the will of nature in an act of hubris, we are bound to bring enormous disaster upon ourselves.”

“GMOs probably trigger disgust because people view genetic modification as a contamination. The effect is enforced when the introduced DNA comes from a species that is generally deemed disgusting, such as rats or cockroaches. However, DNA is DNA, whatever its source. The impact of disgust explains why people feel more averse towards GM food than other GM applications, such as GM medicine. Once disgust is elicited, the argument that GMOs cause cancer or sterility, or that they will contaminate the environment, becomes very convincing and is often used. Disgust also affects moral judgments, leading people to condemn everyone who is involved with the development and commercialization of GM products. Because people have no conscious access to the emotional source of their judgments, they consequently look for arguments to rationalize them.”

 

The author concludes his thoughts on intuitions and emotions with this:

“The impact of intuitions and emotions on people’s understanding of, and attitudes towards, GMOs has important implications for science education and communication. Because the mind is prone to distorting or rejecting scientific information in favour of more intuitive beliefs, simply transmitting the facts will not necessarily persuade people of the safety, or benefits, of GMOs, especially if people have been subjected to emotive, anti-GMO propaganda”.

In researching this topic, I find that the anti-GMC folks have an issue with Glyphosate.  Glyphosate is a herbicide.  Many of us have used Monsanto’s ROUNDUP to control weeds in our lawns and gardens.  Its big application is in controlling weeds in crop farming.  Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.  Roundup is a very popular herbicide and is used on crops of all kinds to kill weeds.  It must be applied on the foliage and is not useable as a pre-emergence herbicide.  This limited the use of glyphosate until companies developed  genetically engineered crops that were tolerant to glyphosate.  It can now be sprayed on the crop plant and the chemical acts as a pre-emergence herbicide as well.  Major food safety bodies have concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet”.

 

cbdakota