Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

"There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony."
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

Moore helped found Greenpeace to protest nuclear weapons testing in Alaska.  His group transformed into an environmental protection  organization, whose tactics became more radical and lawless over time; and has since been a critic of radical environmentalism. He now heads up Ecosense Environmental.

Moore’s comments come after Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama declared global warming not only a “fact,” but a matter of national security rivaling weapons of mass destruction.

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

 

 

New Study Acknowledges Temperature Hiatus, Blames Volcanoes!



Ever since it was first recognized as a real phenomenon, the “pause” in global temperature increases (and increasing divergence from climate model projections), has been wished-away by the die-hard faithful, or explained-away by speculative grant-mongers, despite a complete lack of evidence, as  migrating to the deep ocean waters. 

Now, a new “study” not only accepts and reinforces the reality of the model-defying hiatus, but attempts to explain it away, at least in part, as the result of volcanism.

Someone needs to call John Kerry and his boss, and let them in on the secret: natural processes are driving temperature movement on Earth!

The article reported in Nature Geoscience also goes further, acknowledging decreased solar radiance and insolation as part of the explanation:

“Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.
Eruptions of at least 17 volcanoes since 2000 … ejected sulfur whose sun-blocking effect had been largely ignored until now by climate scientists, it said.
The pace of rising world surface temperatures has slowed since an exceptionally warm 1998, heartening those who doubt that an urgent, trillion-dollar shift to renewable energies from fossil fuels is needed to counter global warming.”

 
But wait, there’s more!  The paper’s authors not only acknowledge the lack of significant temperature rise despite explosive growth in CO2 emissions, they look to other factors, including solar irradiance as possible explanations for the models’ miserable failures to anticipate the lack of warming to match the CO2 rise.
 
"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.
"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.”

A “complex detective story?"

Didn’t those eminent “climate scientists,” Gore, Kerry and Obama just tell the U.S. and the world that we all must be punished with 40% higher energy costs because “the science is settled?”

Apparently, Dr. Santer and his colleagues from across the globe didn’t hear or weren’t listening.

 “Santer said other factors such as a decline in the sun's output, linked to a natural cycle of sunspots, or rising Chinese emissions of sun-blocking pollution could also help explain the recent slowdown in warming.
The study suggested that volcanoes accounted for up to 15 percent of the difference between predicted and observed warming this century. All things being equal, temperatures should rise because greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated highs.”
 
Of course, there will be AGW fanatics who will contend that this is misunderstood or disinformation from the “skeptics.” Unfortunately for the faithful, the article itself gives a summation that should erase their denial of fact and science:

“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming.”

 
This will be discounted by the acolytes, priests and faithful of the AGW grant-mongering class, who will continue to scream that “the science is settled,” and that “the consensus” must always be right to assist in their denial of reality and the increasing evidence of factors other than mankind in the changing climate.

jw

 
Here's the Rwuter's article in question:
 
"Sun-dimming volcanoes partly explain global warming hiatus-study"
 
(Reuters) - Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.

Eruptions of at least 17 volcanoes since 2000, including Nabro in Eritrea, Kasatochi in Alaska and Merapi in Indonesia, ejected sulfur whose sun-blocking effect had been largely ignored until now by climate scientists, it said.

The pace of rising world surface temperatures has slowed since an exceptionally warm 1998, heartening those who doubt that an urgent, trillion-dollar shift to renewable energies from fossil fuels is needed to counter global warming.

Explaining the hiatus could bolster support for a U.N. climate deal, due to be agreed by almost 200 governments at a summit in Paris in late 2015 to avert ever more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.

"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.

Volcanoes are a wild card for climate change - they cannot be predicted and big eruptions, most recently of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can dim global sunshine for years.

Santer said other factors such as a decline in the sun's output, linked to a natural cycle of sunspots, or rising Chinese emissions of sun-blocking pollution could also help explain the recent slowdown in warming.

The study suggested that volcanoes accounted for up to 15 percent of the difference between predicted and observed warming this century. All things being equal, temperatures should rise because greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated highs.

TEMPORARY RESPITE

"Volcanoes give us only a temporary respite from the relentless warming pressure of continued increases in carbon dioxide," said Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds.

A study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year suggested that natural variations in the climate, such as an extra uptake of heat by the oceans, could help explain the warming slowdown at the planet's surface.

The IPCC projected a resumption of warming in coming years and said that "substantial and sustained" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions were needed to counter climate change.

It also raised the probability that human activities were the main cause of warming since 1950 to at least 95 percent from 90 in 2007. Despite the hiatus, temperatures have continued to rise - 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have been this century, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.


 
Dr. Santer's article is summarized here:
 
"Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature"
Benjamin D. Santer,  
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2098
Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modeling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.


 

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Studies confirm: Ins coverage increases use of ER, opposite what Onamacare advocates said to sell ACA


2 studies published recently in the Journal Science confirm preliminary findings of the landmark Oregon Health Insurance Experiment.

You may recall that one of the primary reasons offered in support of Obamacare was that uninsured people, who use the ER as a default primary care health service, would be more likely to go to regular doctors and clinics for their primary, non-urgent, care if insurance was more widely available.

“The OHIE studied the usage of emergency rooms, among other things, following an increase of health insurance coverage through Medicaid.

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment is a landmark, randomized study of the effect of expanding public health insurance on the health care use, health outcomes, financial strain, and well-being of low-income adults.
...
We supplemented these data with emergency department records for an 18-month period following the lottery.
...
We found:
Emergency department visits overall ◦Medicaid increased the probability of using the emergency department by 7 percentage points (an increase of about 20 percent, relative to a base of 34.5 percent).
◦Medicaid increased the number of emergency department visits over the 18-month period by about 40 percent (0.41 visits, relative to a base of 1.02). “

www.nber.org...

The implications, as set out in the Science articles, is that healthcare costs will likely increase significantly due to increased usage of ERs for non-urgent care under Obamacare!
Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment

Straining Emergency Rooms by Expanding Health Insurance

Who would've guessed that another of the lies used to "sell" Obamacare will result in increased usage and costs, rather than reductions? So now, even if you've lost your policy, your primary care physician and specialists, you can still rely on the good old Emergency Room, and have the taxpayers pick up the tab!

This was expertly spelled-out in Slate  by an author whose spouse is a primary care Dr. who makes frequent ER referrals to her low-income patients.


Does Expanding Health Care Coverage Reduce ER Visits?
On the contrary: A new study suggests it increases visits to the emergency room—significantly.

“A few weeks ago, I was asked to write a comment to accompany a study released Thursday in Science, which shows that Medicaid access increases emergency room visits by more than 40 percent. To get a sense of how medical practitioners would respond to the findings, I asked my wife, a primary-care physician at Bellevue Hospital, whether she thought Medicaid would increase or decrease ER use by the kinds of low-income individuals who constitute her patient population. Her reaction: “I refer people to the emergency room all the time. Of course it’ll go up.”

Even if my wife and her fellow primary-care providers aren’t shocked to find their everyday experience validated by a large-scale experiment, many others will be. Public officials from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to state governors in Michigan and Ohio have cited a reduction in traffic to overstressed emergency departments as a rationale for insurance expansion. They’d do well to change their talking points.”
www.slate.com... _increase.html

How many more lies must come to light, and how high will attendant costs have to go before middle-America realizes they've been sold a bill of goods, and get rid of this robbery and top-down control of our lives and healthcare, once and for all?

jw

WFYI Hates Me (as Well as Traditional Marriage)


Our local public radio station, WFYI, 90.1 FM, www.wfyi.org, held another discussion today of the relative merits of HR3 and same-sex marriage.

The focus today was on the relative sanity and economic sense of same-sex marriage, or something close to that.  The guests were a psychologist who studied homes with children, and an HR person from Lilly.  Their basic thrusts, respectively, were that children grow up just fine in same-sex-couple homes, and that opposition to same-sex marriage costs Eli Lilly Co. (the city’s largest employer) jobs and money. 

People were invited to call, email or post questions on Facebook.

Callers were welcomed by first name, emailers “submitted” and Facebookers “posted.”  There were occasionally mysterious appearances from “a listener who didn’t want to appear on air.” 

It struck after a few calls, posts and submissions how biased the show’s host, guests and participants were in favor of same-sex marriage. I got the sense of a foregone conclusion that same-sex marriages were just fine and opposition was not only illogical, but costly to the State and its businesses. It was only occasionally that the sinister “listener who didn’t want to appear on air” would offer a quip or note that traditional marriages fostered strong, growing families; or that it didn’t deter anyone who really wanted a job from moving here.

About half-way through the show, I decided to offer what I understood has been the time-tested basis for heterosexual marriages: to foster a productive citizenry in perpetuity.

Without kids, the state dies.
Without productive citizens, the state starves.
Historically, it seemed to me, that the BEST formula to achieve both goals was through fostering long-term reproductive family units to bring up children.

So, naively, it turns out, I joined the emailers who “submitted,” and offered this:

“I have always been under the impression that the basic justification of a bias in favor of traditional marriage lies with the state’s interest in the production of reliable citizens.

Given the long recognized parens patriae doctrine that a state has a legitimate interest in its children, and that a state cannot exist without productive citizens; history has shown that the best environment that serves those objectives is a married fertile heterosexual couple.
 
 
Has this long-held belief been conclusively refuted?”

 I was sitting at the computer listening and clearing-out spam  when the host announced the intrusion of another of those ignorant brutes who didn’t want to appear on-air:

“I have always been under the impression that the basic justification … .”

A chill ran down my back as I struggled not to fall out of my chair.

Why wasn’t I an email “submitter?  How did I become the apparently-ashamed anonymous rube?

When the host, a lecturer, publisher and former educator who stumbled and mangled and gargled a little Latin phrase as he read with gritted teeth, finished, he said: “this one’s for you Dr.”

“What do you think?”

The psychologist grabbed my example by the throat, and choked the life out of it and related how course children can grow up well-adjusted with single parents, same-sex parents, or traditional families. He failed to throw-in “Well, Duh,” mercifully.

But that wasn’t what I asked; I asked whether history has taught us that traditional families were BEST?

Of course, when a (planted?) emailer wondered whether same-sex families can produce well-adjusted children who contribute to society, the control room shuddered with excitement.

But they never answered my question; and the host cast me and my proposition as so backward and embarrassing that I refused to identify myself.  I guess I should’ve known.

 
Wait ‘til they hear what I think of “Universal Pre-K.”

 

jw