Home » Posts tagged 'science' (Page 11)
Tag Archives: science
Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering
Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering
With record heat (and drought) in the west and record cold (wet and snow) in the east, the global warming game-playing continues every day but the climate-gate rhetoric has increased vociferously since we first noted three weeks ago, the data that has been so relied upon to ‘prove’ global warming’s trend was in fact manipulated. What The Telegraph called “the most extraordinary scandal of our times” – that of the “seasonally-adjusted” seasonal raw global temperature data – is about to be investigated by Congress. As Daily Caller reports, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed “expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise.”
This began, as The Telegraph previously noted, with claims that the underlying data used to justify practically every study p[roving global warming has, in fact, been manipulated…
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Junk Science? Report Finds Shale Industry Cited ‘Retracted and Discredited’ Studies
Junk Science? Report Finds Shale Industry Cited ‘Retracted and Discredited’ Studies
Since the beginning of the shale gas rush, the drilling industry has insisted that the process is relatively benign, arguing that its critics are simply fear-mongering and that a sober scientific review of the data fails to prove, for instance, that fracking has ever contaminated water supplies.
In the wake of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision to disallow fracking in that state, for example, one of the most active boosters of the shale drilling rush, the industry-funded Energy in Depth, issued a statement labeling the ban “’Junk Science’ and ‘Political Theater.”
In the wake of news reports, academic publications, or policy decisions that it opposes, Energy in Depth often circulates lists of sources that it describes as debunking “junk science.” But how reliable is the science that EID cites?
A report issued today by the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) reviews a list of over 130 studies cited by Energy in Depth (EID), testing its sources for markers of credibility.
How often was the research cited peer-reviewed? Was it accurately labeled? Was the research funded by the oil and gas industry, and if so, was that funding properly disclosed or was it concealed? Were any of the papers cited revoked or rescinded?
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Bjørn Lomborg Sings WSJ’s Same Old Climate Change Song: Don’t Worry, Be Happy
Bjørn Lomborg Sings WSJ’s Same Old Climate Change Song: Don’t Worry, Be Happy
Bjorn Lomborg’s latest op-ed in the Wall Street Journal resurrects repeatedly demolished distortions of fact to downplay the real and increasingly documented threats of climate change. His trademark tactic is to acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, only to then dismiss the solutions—reducing emissions and promoting clean energy now—as unnecessary or infeasible.
Fortunately, his longstanding fight against climate action is failing to persuade the public, as an overwhelming majority of Americans understand that climate change is a serious threat and that we’re already feeling the impacts. More to the point they support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially through continued expansion of clean energy and new rules for coal-fired power plants.
Mr. Lomborg has relied on similar distortions for his arguments many times before, even drawing censure from the Danish government for his “perversion of the scientific method.”
After the release of Lomborg’s “deeply flawed” book The Skeptical Environmentalist, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science remarked that Lomborg’s work was a testament to the “vulnerability of the scientific process…to outright misrepresentation and distortion.” One researcher decided to fact check Lomborg’s claims, and had so much material that Yale published it as a book: The Lomborg Deception. In the book, Lomborg’s many sloppy citations and misleading myths are thoroughly debunked, but that hasn’t stopped him from repeating the same general arguments in years since.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages
MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages
On January 21, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) again displayed the same deception/incompetence that pervaded his book, The Greatest Hoax (2012).
In this video segment (3:00-5:20), he presented a poster on the Senate floor that matches the image below from“Kyoto by Degrees,” an anonymous Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Opinion piece, June 21, 2005. Both contained claims plausibly called academic or journalistic deception, created for public confusion.
Regardless of ancient tempreatures, modern temperature rise is human-caused, not just natural variation: you damaged your furnace so it now ignores the thermostat. Heat varies erratically, room by room, and day by day, but each week the house is overall wamer than the last. Your attic Arctic fridge’s ice cubes are melting and even the basement freezer is starting to struggle. The furnace will take months to fix, and you need to start, whether or not you believe rumors that some previous owner experienced warmer weather.
Following is the WSJ image Inhofe used without mentioning that source:
“
Trend in average” : Deception.
The original curve was sketched in 1965 by Hubert Lamb, who grafted estimates of 900-1680AD with1680-1961AD measurements compiled by Gordon Manley. It covered a 21×34-mile patch of England.
“exactly as shown”: Falsification. false citation. Real science uses captions and caveats, ignored here by cherry-pickers who plucked the graph out of context and even altered the image.
“mean”: Fabrication. See below.
Lamb MWP curve never global, real science improves
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
The central contradiction in the modern outlook: ‘Planet of the Apes’ vs ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’
The central contradiction in the modern outlook: ‘Planet of the Apes’ vs ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’
When talking about the perils of climate change or resource depletion, soil degradation or fisheries collapse, water pollution or nuclear waste–how annoying it is to have one listener respond dismissively, “They’ll figure something out. They always have.”
It’s a nonsense rejoinder and yet, it often gains the assent of many–as if this assertion were a self-evident truth that only an enemy of progress would question. And, that’s where we’ll start examining the central contradiction in the modern outlook–with a statement that is offered as if it were a scientific fact, when, in truth, it is nothing more than a piece of dogma enunciated by the religion we call modernism.
At first glance, the statement seems backward-looking because it asserts that we humans have always averted catastrophe through our ingenuity. But, of course, this is complete hogwash. History is replete with civilizations that have risen and then fallen, crumbling for myriad reasons eerily similar to ones said to threaten our own: climate change, resource depletion, soil degradation, water pollution, plagues, war, and political disintegration. The listener’s statement above can’t really be backward-looking for it would fall to pieces with only a cursory review of history.
And so, this means that it must actually be forward-looking. It assumes that the future cannot fail even though the past testifies to almost certain decline for our civilization at some point. What is the basis for this forward-looking optimism concerning a future which we cannot know?
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
BBC – Earth – Earth’s magnetic field now flips more often than ever
BBC – Earth – Earth’s magnetic field now flips more often than ever.
The Earth’s magnetic field, which protects us from potentially dangerous solar radiation, is gradually losing its stability. No need to move underground or build space colonies just yet, though: the changes are taking place over millions of years.
You might assume that compasses will always point north, but in fact the magnetic poles have swapped places many times in the Earth’s history. Earth scientists have long suspected that these flips are becoming more frequent, and that the magnetic field was less prone to pole reversals in the distant past.
Now the most detailed analysis of the geological evidence to date suggests that the field really is slowly destabilising. Whereas in the distant past it reversed direction every 5 million years, it now does so every 200,000 years.
Peak Oil: Statements Aren’t Always Conclusive – Peak Oil Matters
Peak Oil: Statements Aren’t Always Conclusive – Peak Oil Matters.
Michael Lynch offered that comment early in a not surprisingly vague article arguing peak oil this past summer. [Not that vague is a new tactic for him. Five years ago, Chris Nelder offered a concise analysis of Lynch’s work, and not much appears to have changed]:
For those allergic to facts and reality, it’s easy to understand the consternation expressed by Lynch and his peers. Their antidote—make pronouncements and assume they will serve as the last word—is consistent with their avoid-evidence-at-all-costs approach to a subject with (I assume) unfortunate personal ramifications to their professional efforts.
No doubt adding to their consternation is the fact that some of us poor souls still rely on facts and evidence and reality to make determinations on matters of importance, and “amazingly” we believe that the concepts embraced under the peak oil umbrella are quite believable. We’re willing to review evidence, of course. Without any, however, we remain singularly unimpressed with puffed-up statements which deniers are quick to offer without substantiation.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Sharp Edge of the Shell
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Sharp Edge of the Shell.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Fragmentation of Technology
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Fragmentation of Technology.
Bill Passed: EPA Must Take Advice from Industry Shills, NOT from Independent Scientists |
Bill Passed: EPA Must Take Advice from Industry Shills, NOT from Independent Scientists |.
The Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency that is charged with the responsibility of writing and enforcing legislation to protect human health and the environment. Established under Nixon in 1970, the EPA is another one of those agencies that sounds like a good idea, until you peel off the shiny friendly top layer to discover the stench of corruption underneath. Up until now, they at least pretended to be there to serve as watchdogs, but it seems like they’ve decided to give up on that silly illusion.
Since they are looking after all things environmental, they need unbiased specialists to advise them on policies and issues.
Silly me, I always thought that sounded sort of…I dunno…science-y.
Our estimable House of Representatives disagrees.
Apparently they feel the EPA should not take advice from independent scientists at all. In fact, they believe it so strongly that they just passed a bill barring the freaking ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY from taking the advice of independent scientists. They are now expected to take their advice from people who are “industry affiliated.” Oh – and those people don’t actually have to be scientists at all.
Yeah. Because that’s not a conflict of interest.
– See more at: http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/bill-passed-epa-must-only-take-advice-from-industry-shills-not-from-independent-scientists-11232014#sthash.WNDMbHlN.dpuf
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Suicide of Science
The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: The Suicide of Science.
Oil and Gas Industry’s “Endless War” on Fracking Critics Revealed by Rick Berman | DeSmogBlog
Oil and Gas Industry’s “Endless War” on Fracking Critics Revealed by Rick Berman | DeSmogBlog.
Leave it to Washington’s top attack-dog lobbyist Richard Berman to verify what many always suspected: that the oil and gas industry uses dirty tricks to undermine science, vilify its critics and discredit journalists who cast doubt on the prudence of fossil fuels.
In a speech at an industry conference in June, surreptitiously recorded by an energy executive, Rick Berman, the foremost go-to guy for Republican smear campaigns, gave unusually candid advice to a meeting of drilling companies.
“Think of this as an endless war,” he told executives in a speech, which was leaked to The New York Times by an attendee at the conferenece who was offended by Berman’s remarks.
“And you have to budget for it.” He said the industry needs to dig up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, exploit the public’s short attention span for scientific debate, and play on people’s emotions.
“Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign,” Berman said. “We’re not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months.”
Berman also advised that executives continue to spend big. “I think $2 to $3 million would be a game changer,” he said. “We’ve had six-figure contributions to date from a few companies in this room to help us get to where we are.”
…click on the above link to read the rest of the story…
How Industry First Went to War With Climate Science | DeSmog UK
How Industry First Went to War With Climate Science | DeSmog UK.
Scientists had well understood for many decades that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could raise global temperatures and cause climate change. But when politicians finally took notice, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed, industry began a war with science itself.
Bert Bolin, the founder of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was the first scientist to detect signals from the coal and oil industry that there would be serious resistance to climate science and its policy implications.
As soon as governments began taking the issue seriously, the energy industry mobilised its greatest assets in order to combat organised opposition to its climate-damaging activities.
The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was formed as soon as the IPCC came into being and, as the name suggests, this was an industry-funded powerhouse designed to undermine any global coalition to prevent climate change.
Remembering Rick Piltz, Who Fought Government Suppression of Science – The Intercept
Remembering Rick Piltz, Who Fought Government Suppression of Science – The Intercept.
Rick Piltz, a climate change whistleblower, died this weekend of cancer.
Piltz revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration was revising supposedly scientific reports to cast doubt on the existence of human-caused climate change. He leaked copies of the edited documents toThe New York Times, after resigning from his job as a senior associate for the U.S. government’s Global Change Research Office.
Piltz’s move not only drew attention to Bush’s intentional suppression of scientific fact, but also to the administration’s dubious hiring practices. Less than a week after the story was published, the official who made the edits, Philip A. Cooney,announced he would resign as chief of staff for the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House to return to his former role as a lobbyist for the petroleum industry.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Richard Feynman on the Social Sciences | Erico Matias Tavares | LinkedIn
Richard Feynman on the Social Sciences | Erico Matias Tavares | LinkedIn.
What do real scientists have to say about sciences that are not so real?
Born in 1918, Richard Feynman was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in a variety of fields where he made an immeasurable contribution, including quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and particle physics. He was also credited with introducing the concept of nanotechnology, a breakthrough that holds so much promise today.
A professor at the California Institute of Technology, Feynman helped popularize physics through lectures and books which he made more accessible to the general public. He received many honors for his work throughout his life. He was elected to the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society of London. He was recently ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.
…click on link above for the rest of the article…
