The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[American Patriot]

well....

never mind. I won't say "I told you so".

[Ryan Ruck]

‘Bulls**t!’: Al Gore Comes ‘Unhinged’ During Climate Change Speech

August 8, 2011

It hasn’t been a good couple weeks for climate change proponents. And that seems to be getting under Al Gore’s skin.

On July 28, it was revealed that the scientist behind the polar-bears-are-in-trouble research is being investigated for “scientific misconduct” regarding the article oft-sited by climate change leaders. Then, a new study of NASA data revealed that the earth is actually allowing more heat to escape the planet than previously thought by the climate change community.

So maybe that’s why Al Gore decided to unleash on climate change skeptics last week during a speech at the Aspen Institute in Colorado. The Colorado Independent notes that Gore launched into a vulgar tirade while accusing skeptics of media manipulation:

The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.

And yes, there is audio:

YouTube: Al Gore is Frustrated with Climate Realists


(More at the link)

[American Patriot]

Idiot.....

[Phil Fiord]

[Phil Fiord]

too much?

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

I like it

[Phil Fiord]

Why thank you guys It was sincere, though a tad off color.

[American Patriot]

Keep it civil, urges Abbott as protesters maintain the rage

Lenore Taylor

August 17, 2011

Tony Abbott addressed the No Carbon Tax rally outside Parliament House Canberra on Tuesday. Photo: Andrew Meares


TONY ABBOTT has told his party that politicians have a ''duty'' to keep the political debate ''civil'' because ''we don't want our country reduced to two warring camps''.


Moments later members of his own frontbench were imploring the 4000-strong angry anti-carbon tax rally outside Parliament House to ''maintain the rage'' and ''keep up the fight to take back the nation''.


As Parliament resumed, both Labor and Liberal MPs reported strong anecdotal and polling evidence that voters were deeply concerned about the level of division, anger and animosity in the national debate.
Advertisement: Story continues below


The government blames Mr Abbott, who has called for a ''people's revolt'' against the carbon tax, and who the Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, accused yesterday of ''spreading fear and alarm through deliberate misrepresentations''.


But Mr Abbott appeared to change tone yesterday. When a backbencher told a meeting of Liberal and National MPs they had never seen such intensity of anger in their electorate, Mr Abbott told his party that voters were entitled to be angry with the government but politicians had a duty to keep the debate civil.


The Opposition Leader was careful to tell the rally - where climate sceptic groups like the Galileo Movement were heavily represented - that while he supported their opposition to the carbon tax and their call for a fresh election, he did not agree with every sign he saw or all of their opinions.


Mr Abbott, who received a rock star welcome at the protest, said the ''fundamental message'' he wanted ''to go out from this place to every nook and cranny of our country'' was ''there should be no new tax collection without an election''.


Rally organisers had earlier asked a protester to put down a ''ditch the witch'' poster, which had caused offence at their last Canberra gathering, because they wanted the protest to be ''responsible and respectful''.
Despite yesterday's protest, and next week's ''Convoy of No Confidence'', in which truck drivers will converge on the capital, the carbon tax looks set to pass Parliament in September with the support of the Greens and the three lower house independents.


But Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce told the rally that ''this is half-time, you have to go the full game for our nation'' and to protect cheap power, which he described as Australians' ''birthright''.


The frontbencher Sophie Mirabella told the protesters to ''maintain the rage, maintain the fight''.


Mr Combet acknowledged that there was a lot of public concern about the tax ''whipped up by Tony Abbott's completely unprincipled opportunistic fear campaign''.


Labor backbenchers are also reporting deep anger in their electorates over the plan to force a spending pre-commitment for poker machines, a policy against which clubs are organising a grassroots campaign.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...#ixzz1VCjGZCAW

[American Patriot]

Perhaps there IS hope for Australia, and eventually Europe...

[American Patriot]

Not too sure if any of you are familiar with a man called Nathaniel Bowditch or not. He wrote a book, simply known as "Bowditch" these days back in the late 1700s and it is the essential Mariner's Bible.

I've been studying this book for a couple of years on and off, for various things I've been trying to learn.

The history of the book is extensive and has gone through a few iterations to what it is today, replete with history and plenty of real, hard core science about oceanography, weather (to include a massive amount on Hurricanes) and navigation using a sextant to a GPS.

But something caught my eye today. I'll post it shortly, and obviously it has to do with the subject at hand here, "Global Warming".

The book having been written in 1778 or so and then has been revised many times since so that the most up-to-date volume is available today (free by the way if anyone is interested!) and the first chapter on Weather (chapter 35 - Weather Elements) has two paragraphs which I need to share here.

Weather is the state of the earth’s atmosphere with respect
to temperature, humidity, precipitation, visibility,
cloudiness, and other factors. Climate refers to the average
long-term meteorological conditions of a place or region.

All weather may be traced to the effect of the sun on the
earth. Most changes in weather involve large-scale horizontal
motion of air. Air in motion is called wind. This motion
is produced by differences of atmospheric pressure, which
are attributable both to differences of temperature and the
nature of the motion itself.

This particular thing defines two things. "Climate Change" - is a regional issue and the science of weather is dependent up on ONE and ONLY ONE thing - the sun.

There are scientists out there who are so set in their belief of "Global Warming" created by man that they simply can not see this simple and basic fact.

In my mind I am not a "climate denier" as Al Gore makes me out to be, or a "science denier". In fact, I believe very strongly in science. But as someone who has studied more than ONE science I think there are a tendency for people to tunnel-vision things. Earth Sciences are just that - the science of the Earth like geology, meteorology, oceanography and so forth. But there is physics involved in how weather works and how the magnetic poles function. There's physics in how the atmosphere is affected by external forces and the greatest external force we know of is the Sun itself.

The sun is comprised of a massive ball of hydrogen when is constantly under great pressure and creating a constant nuclear fusion explosion, converting hydrogen into helium at a stupendous rate of conversion. This giant fireball in our day time sky is absolutely, irrevocably tied to the atmospheric conditions on this planet.

The sun heats the planet up, which in turn helps to give us atmospheric convection because the poles are generally very cold, and since cold air sinks, warm air rises, and the Earth turns, the combination of these things gives us winds.

Winds are also created by low and high pressure systems (which in turn are created by cold and warm air). But even so, without the Sun we'd be a cold snowy ball of ice, with no life here.

Because of the Sun, the planet is warmed to the point that life as we know it can exist and continue to exist.

And to be honest cows produce more methane gas than humans do overall and have been producing such gasses for centuries - as long as cows have existed. Not to mention all the other critters out there that fart...

So far be it for the entire biomass on this planet to have made much of a dent in the winds, the oceans, the mountains or the skies.

Sure, lots and lots of vegetation can have an effect on slowing the winds, and also create more oxygen getting rid of the CO2 produced by people and animals. But it comes down to a basic problem here with Global Warming.

Yes, we have "Global Warming" - produced by the SUN, but not by humans and these people who press man-made global warming or "climate change" on us are disingenuous liars. Every, last one of them are misinformed, or they are flat out lying about what they think they know. They make things up (evidenced by the morons who had to fake emails and data to try to prove their points) and they try to make you believe things that aren't true.

The next time someone says something about "Global Warming" try asking them how the Sun, the nearest STAR to the planet might affect their calculations.

[American Patriot]

Not too sure if any of you are familiar with a man called Nathaniel Bowditch or not. He wrote a book, simply known as "Bowditch" these days back in the late 1700s and it is the essential Mariner's Bible.

I've been studying this book for a couple of years on and off, for various things I've been trying to learn.

The history of the book is extensive and has gone through a few iterations to what it is today, replete with history and plenty of real, hard core science about oceanography, weather (to include a massive amount on Hurricanes) and navigation using a sextant to a GPS.

But something caught my eye today. I'll post it shortly, and obviously it has to do with the subject at hand here, "Global Warming".

The book having been written in 1778 or so and then has been revised many times since so that the most up-to-date volume is available today (free by the way if anyone is interested!) and the first chapter on Weather (chapter 35 - Weather Elements) has two paragraphs which I need to share here.

Weather is the state of the earth’s atmosphere with respect
to temperature, humidity, precipitation, visibility,
cloudiness, and other factors. Climate refers to the average
long-term meteorological conditions of a place or region.

All weather may be traced to the effect of the sun on the
earth. Most changes in weather involve large-scale horizontal
motion of air. Air in motion is called wind. This motion
is produced by differences of atmospheric pressure, which
are attributable both to differences of temperature and the
nature of the motion itself.

This particular thing defines two things. "Climate Change" - is a regional issue and the science of weather is dependent up on ONE and ONLY ONE thing - the sun.

There are scientists out there who are so set in their belief of "Global Warming" created by man that they simply can not see this simple and basic fact.

In my mind I am not a "climate denier" as Al Gore makes me out to be, or a "science denier". In fact, I believe very strongly in science. But as someone who has studied more than ONE science I think there are a tendency for people to tunnel-vision things. Earth Sciences are just that - the science of the Earth like geology, meteorology, oceanography and so forth. But there is physics involved in how weather works and how the magnetic poles function. There's physics in how the atmosphere is affected by external forces and the greatest external force we know of is the Sun itself.

The sun is comprised of a massive ball of hydrogen when is constantly under great pressure and creating a constant nuclear fusion explosion, converting hydrogen into helium at a stupendous rate of conversion. This giant fireball in our day time sky is absolutely, irrevocably tied to the atmospheric conditions on this planet.

The sun heats the planet up, which in turn helps to give us atmospheric convection because the poles are generally very cold, and since cold air sinks, warm air rises, and the Earth turns, the combination of these things gives us winds.

Winds are also created by low and high pressure systems (which in turn are created by cold and warm air). But even so, without the Sun we'd be a cold snowy ball of ice, with no life here.

Because of the Sun, the planet is warmed to the point that life as we know it can exist and continue to exist.

And to be honest cows produce more methane gas than humans do overall and have been producing such gasses for centuries - as long as cows have existed. Not to mention all the other critters out there that fart...

So far be it for the entire biomass on this planet to have made much of a dent in the winds, the oceans, the mountains or the skies.

Sure, lots and lots of vegetation can have an effect on slowing the winds, and also create more oxygen getting rid of the CO2 produced by people and animals. But it comes down to a basic problem here with Global Warming.

Yes, we have "Global Warming" - produced by the SUN, but not by humans and these people who press man-made global warming or "climate change" on us are disingenuous liars. Every, last one of them are misinformed, or they are flat out lying about what they think they know. They make things up (evidenced by the morons who had to fake emails and data to try to prove their points) and they try to make you believe things that aren't true.

The next time someone says something about "Global Warming" try asking them how the Sun, the nearest STAR to the planet might affect their calculations.

[Backstop]

Talk about an inconvenient truth...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/...Global-Warming

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents!

Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group's Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.'

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Climate Depot Exclusive

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming: 'We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated'

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can't be discussed -- just like religion...there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It's strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science' & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' -- APS President Curtis Callan 'seems to have abandoned most ethical principles...APS has become a corrupt organization' & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis -- AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

APS President has been under fire as well. See: 'APS President Callan didn't even bother to discuss the ClimateGate and the petition inspired by it with Will Happer and Robert Austin'

Below is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS


Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

************************************************** ************************************************** ****
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

[American Patriot]

That LIAR! WTF? Who does this SCIENTIST think he IS! He must be a PSEUDO-SCIENTIST and not a REAL one.

The bastage..


LMAO

[Ryan Ruck]

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

I suspect Ivar Giaever is the cause of global warming because that is what you call a BURN!

[American Patriot]

hjehehehehe

[Ryan Ruck]

CERN: 'Climate Models Will Need To Be Substantially Revised'

August 25, 2011

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning.

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.


Cosmic ray particles don't just cause cloud nucleation, they also shrink the fonts CERN uses on its graphics...

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."

More from CERN here, and a video here.

[Ryan Ruck]

Britain Faces A Mini "Ice Age"

October 10, 2011

BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.

And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.

Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.

The climate phenomenon, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific, was linked to our icy winter last year – one of the coldest on record.

And it coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.

Although a connection between La Nina and conditions in Europe is scientifically uncertain, ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month.

La Nina, which occurs every three to five years, has a powerful effect on weather thousands of miles away by influencing an intense upper air current that helps create low pressure fronts.

Another factor that can affect Europe is the amount of ice in the Arctic and sea temperatures closer to home.

Ian Currie, of the Meterological Society, said: “All the world’s weather systems are connected. What is going on now in the Pacific can have repercussions later around the world.”

Parts of the country already saw the first snowfalls of the winter last week, dumping two inches on the Cairngorms in Scotland. And forecaster James Madden, from Exacta Weather, warned we are facing a “severely cold and snowy winter”.

Councils say they are fully prepared having stockpiled thousands of tons of extra grit. And the Local Government Association says it had more salt available at the beginning of this month than the total used last winter.

But the mountain of salt could be dug into very soon amid widespread heavy snow as early as the start of next month. Last winter, the Met Office was heavily criticised after predicting a mild winter, only to see the country grind to a halt amid hazardous driving conditions in temperatures as low as -20C.

Peter Box, the Local Government Association’s economy and transport spokesman, said: “Local authorities have been hard at work making preparations for this winter and keeping the roads open will be our number one priority.”

The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.

Such forecasting is, however, notoriously difficult, especially for the UK, which is subject to a wide range of competing climatic forces.

A Met Office spokesman said that although La Nina was recurring, the temperatures in the equatorial Pacific were so far only 1C below normal, compared with a drop of 2C at the same time last year.

Research by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that in 2010-11 La Nina contributed to record winter snowfalls, spring flooding and drought across the world.

Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “The end of the month and November are looking colder than average with severe frosts and the chance of snow.”

However, some balmy autumnal sunshine was forecast for this week.

[American Patriot]

GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House on 'Scientific Misconduct'


Published October 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet

• 
  AP
  ** FILE ** In this Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007 file photo, John Holdren, professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, speaks at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy presentations in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration's science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of "scientific misconduct" among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using "sound science."
The letter sent Wednesday to John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, cited four specific controversies in recent years where scientific findings were questioned. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., rattled off a slew of questions on what they called "the apparent collapse in the quality of scientific work being conducted at our federal agencies."

• 
  Feb. 9, 2011: Sen. James Inhofe testifies on Capitol Hill.

"Specifically, we are concerned with data quality, integrity of methodologies and collection of information, agencies misrepresenting publicly the weight of scientific 'facts,' indefensible representations of scientific conclusions before our federal court system, and our fundamental notions of 'sound' science," they wrote. "We identify in this letter important examples of agency scientific misconduct."
Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey told FoxNews.com the issues in the letter had been on Republicans' radar screen "for some time." But he said the lawmakers decided to compile them and confront the administration about it out of concern that a "trend" was developing.
"The concern is there's a lot more there," he said.
White House representatives so far have not returned requests for comment on the letter.
The Republicans' letter cycles through several incidents the lawmakers claim to be troubling.
One concerned the controversy over a temporary deepwater drilling moratorium was issued in May 2010. In the announcement, the Interior Department said the report's recommendations had been "peer-reviewed" by experts with the National Academy of Engineering. But those experts later complained, saying the moratorium was not among their approved recommendations -- this led to an apology from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Interior officials later told the inspector general's office probing the incident they did not intend to imply those experts supported the drilling ban.
The GOP lawmakers, though, said the incident shows "blatant political influence" in the decision making.
The lawmakers also questioned an EPA assessment on the dangers posed by formaldehyde -- the National Research Council earlier this year claimed the assessment did not adequately back up some of its claims, including claims that the chemical causes leukemia and respiratory tract cancers.
In another case, the lawmakers highlighted the scolding a federal judge gave the Fish and Wildlife Service last month over testimony in defense of a plan to protect a tiny fish called delta smelt by diverting water in California away from farmland. U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger said the testimony was "riddled with inconsistency."
In their letter, the lawmakers focused most on concerns about the 2009 decision to pull the plug on the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada. The project years in the making faced heavy opposition in Nevada.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu in 2009 said the project was simply not a "workable option." In early 2010, the department withdrew its license application for the site, and moved instead to impanel a commission to look at alternative sites. A department filing at the time noted that scientific knowledge on nuclear waste had "advanced dramatically" in the 20 years since the project started.
But the Government Accountability Office said in an April report the DOE did not cite "technical or safety issues" in its decision.
"Amid uncertainty over whether it had the authority to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program, DOE terminated the program without formally assessing the risks stemming from the shutdown, including the possibility that it might have to resume the repository effort," the report said.
A June report from Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee also said the panel could not find a "single document" to support claims that Yucca Mountain is unsafe for nuclear waste.
Not all Republicans are united in backing the Yucca site, however.
It's a sensitive issue in Nevada, and at the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night top GOP candidates said the federal government should not be sticking Nevada with the waste.
"The idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, 'We want to give you our nuclear waste,' doesn't make a lot of sense," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said.
For the incidents cited in the letter to Holdren, the lawmakers asked for more information about how the alleged missteps occurred and what the administration intends to do about them.
Though Inhofe is best known on the scientific front for challenging climate change science and the regulations that emerge from it, the letter did not specifically address climate change.
But in a separate letter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute on Tuesday sent a Freedom of Information Act request to Holdren's office asking for records on coordination between his office and the United Nations climate change panel.
In a statement, the group charged that a U.N. plan would "hide" online correspondence by using non-governmental accounts. CEI urged the White House to use official email channels.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1bM064nsD

[Ryan Ruck]

How long before John McCain or Lindsey Graham say we should drop this and "focus on real issues"?

[American Patriot]

24 hours.

LOL