|
|||||
|
|
|
|         
|
|
|||||
If you think this climate issue isn't hurting the democrats you're not paying attention, have a look at this video, it's just embarrassing and a real problem.
Senator Sessions (R) is no genius like Dyson is recognized to be, but in this recent video he utterly shreds the EPA chief who doesn't have a leg to stand on here because he's armed with facts and she's not. She isn't even aware of what the IPCC report says when he uses it against her.
When the EPA administrator is asked flat out if she knows whether the temperatures predicted by the climate models are above or below the actual observed/measured temperature, she doesn't know.
She's asking for triple the usual increase in budget to support the Presidents UN commitments on climate and at this point you have to wonder if should she get any budget at all, not being able to answer a single question correctly or in some cases able to answer the question at all.
These were very carefully chosen questions that anybody who actually understands the science knows the answers to off the top of their head. This is really embarrassing when the head of the Environmental Protection Agency cannot answer the simplest questions about what is alleged to be the greatest known threat to the environment.
Here's the problem though. Only 0.3% of scientists think global warming is man made.
Cook 2013 asserted 97% of scientists believe AGW.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
The problem is flawed methodology, Legates et al 2013 noted "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. of 97% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic".
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Zero point three percent, not "97%".
A recent Gallup poll shows public confidence in the global warming hypothesis decreased by nearly 20% in only four years. That's a shattering loss of public confidence in a very short period of time. And for good reason.
"Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
Scientists and the public alike are becoming increasingly less convinced that the AGW hypothesis is in any way real, and as people take the time to study the material they find out they've been lied to and people really don't like being lied to. Sending troops to the wrong country to kill two million people? They get over that, but being lied to by "scientists" about matters of public health and safety? Not so much.
We know in the medical field 90% of research papers are not actual true. What are the odds that's the only field affected the corrupting influence of money?
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
What is medicine's 5 sigma? - Richard Hortonemail - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext
Pharmaceutical companies write their own "clinical reports", then bribe doctors to put their names on them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/07/health.businessofresearch
Such "ghostwriting" is not uncommon at all.
Lacasse JR, Leo J (2010) Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States. PLoS Med 7(2): e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230
Ornithologists who have no funding now get paid to study the effects of climate change on birds (and find nothing coincidentally)
"I traveled to Alaska with a team from UC Davis who is trying to figure out which species of mosquitoes are actually transmitting malaria to the birds."
http://www.calacademy.org/blogs/project-lab/avian-malaria-and-climate-change
Malaria is of course a tropical disease. Prior to losing funding this researchers studied these birds, which is legitimate. But now when you lose funding, tack on "climate" and your grant comes back. It's wholescale bribery. These are the scientists who believe in climate change, ornithologists that can pay the rest if they agree global warming is an issue.
This has the great potential to swing undecided voters away from the Democrats to the Republican party who may now very well stand a reasonable chance of winning.
As soon as they're in power - and it's very uncommon in American history to have the trifecta of house, senate as well as white house; the GOP will very much undo all the hard earned gains made under the Obama administration. As well as the death of the EPA and you can expect more oil drilling, more spills, obstacles to alternative energy, continued environmental disaster and destruction up to and including loss of human life.
It will be catastrophic to have the tea party in compete control of the country with with unfettered ability to appoint new supreme court justices it represents a coup d'etat of the United States by a bunch of dangerous lunatics who would be in control of all three branches of the US government - executive (White House), judicial (The Supreme court) and legislative (the Senate and the house of representatives).
But, if the Democrats distance themselves from Gore's smoke, mirrors and broken math then there is no contention between the two parties on this issue and the undecided vote will swing the other way
If the left distances itself from the climate issue it makes zero functional difference - you just change the rhetoric from "climate change" to "pollution" and we get back on course with progress we made in the 1960s and 1970s that stopped when the focus shifted in the late 70s to global warming - that was absolutely was happening 1978-1998, but is a normal phenomenon. The entire history of earth's temperate is up and down cycles no mater what the timescale.
That is, this minority opinion of belief in a manufactured crisis could cost left the election.
I understand that it's hard to accept something you believe so strongly and that's been push in the media so much, but the idea there is consensus on this in the scientific community is simply not true.
Freeman Dyson explains climate with scientific rigour and rejects what he called the religion of alarmism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
Burt Rutan (of Gossamer albatross fame) does the best takedown of the distorte math and science of any I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFm1TXshZY
Dr. Judith Curry is is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee and her website is nothing but skeptical of the IPCC conclusions and process. during a senate panel on the presidents UN climate pledge she stated "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence".
http://judithcurry.com/
If your mind is made up and noting will change it, then you are not a reasonable person and I wish you good luck with that. But if you embrace the scientific process then you are obliged to examine both sides of the evidence, weigh it all then make an informed decision. Ignoring one side rules out any pretense that you believe in the scientific process and means instead you're part of a cult or a religion.
Make no mistake the EPA is fighting for its life here as is NASA and they will be undone unless facts and logic prevail.
It's very painful to watch the Sessions video but unless you want the EPA to die a horrible death and water and air to lose what little protection they currently have you need to look at it.
The right has a saying now "in god we trust all others send data" and this is going to resonate with people when the head of the EPA can't answer questions and/or gets them wrong. It's very painful to watch.