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.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/23/us-climate-volcanoes-idUSBREA1M0W920140223?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=76

 

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.”

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

 

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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/23/us-climate-volcanoes-idUSBREA1M0W920140223?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=76

 

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.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

 

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

I don't really have anything to add to what's said here, except, maybe, "I told you so."

From Jim Geraghty and the National Review:

Three Lies to the Public That Must Have Consequences

From the first Morning Jolt of the week… A National Security Agency leak tells me many of you are already subscribers, but some of you aren’t. If you’re not already a subscriber, click on the link or look for the box in the upper right hand of your screen.

Three Administration Lies to the Public That Must Have a Consequence
President Obama, speaking to the American public, Friday afternoon:

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

In the specific issue that Obama is discussing, i.e., oversight of the National Security Agency’s vast data collection on American citizens, there is the problem in that no one within that system of oversight has the role or duty to speak on behalf of those being monitored, or about to be monitored. The executive branch knows what it wants – it wants to monitor people. The Congress may or may not want to advocate the argument, “hey, that person hasn’t done anything wrong, you have no good reason to collect that information on them” – judging from what we now know, no one argued that perspective very strongly. And the oversight of the judicial branch is pretty weak when we know the Department of Justice goes “judge shopping” when their initial requests are rejected. If the executive branch can keep going to new judges until they get the decision they want, there isn’t really much of a check on their power, now is there?
Regarding that alleged Congressional oversight, Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, is coming awfully close to accusing the president of lying:

“Since government officials have repeatedly told the public and Congress that Patriot Act authorities are simply analogous to a grand jury subpoena, and that intelligence agencies do not collect information or dossiers on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, I think the executive branch has an obligation to explain whether or not these statements are actually true,” Wyden said.

Wyden’s suspicion is driven by a lie he appears to have been told under oath, one we’ll look at in a moment. But more generally, we have seen quite a few folks in the executive branch abuse the public’s trust and then see no real consequences for it.
LIE ONE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s November 28 explanation about changes made to talking points about the Benghazi attack:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” because “consulate” was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

You can see the twelve rounds of revisions here, well more than a single adjustment, and mostly in response to State Department objections.
After it became clear that Carney had put forth false information, he dug in deeper, insisting that the twelve rounds of revisions were merely “stylistic changes.” Carney paid for his lie with two days of hostile questions from the White House Press Corps… and then the storm seemed to have blown over.
LIE TWO: Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, May 15:

“Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.”

Michael Isikoff later reported the precise opposite: The Justice Department pledged Friday to to review its policies relating to the seizure of information from journalists after acknowledging that a controversial search warrant for a  Fox News reporter’s private emails  was approved “at the highest levels” of the Justice Department, including “discussions” with Attorney General  Eric Holder.
There is a claim from the usual suspects – Media Matters – that Holder is in the clear because he was asked about prosecutions for publishing classified information, not solicitation for classified information; they assert that the two actions are totally different. A pretty thin reed for a perjury defense, and one that utterly fails the standard of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States informing the public of his department’s operations.
For us to believe that, it would mean that during the entire Justice Department discussion of prosecuting Fox News’ James Rosen for soliciting the information, no one suggested or mentioned prosecuting Rosen for publishing it. Remember, Holder didn’t just say he didn’t agree with that idea; he said he never heard of the idea.
LIE THREE: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 12, responding to questions from Wyden, Democrat of Oregon:

Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” 

The subsequent explanation from Clapper: “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that,” Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
But that’s not what he was asked, nor was it even close to what he was asked. In fact, the light from what he was asked takes several years to reach a question about voyeurism.
If your excuse is that you are incapable of discerning what ‘any type of data at all’ means, you are no longer allowed to have a job title that has the word ‘intelligence’ in it.
This weekend, the Guardian reported, “During a 30-day period in March 2013, the documents indicate, the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of intelligence from within the United States.”
Two of these three were under oath before Congress; the other was to the press, with the cameras rolling, on a topic of high public interest and great controversy.
If Obama were to ask for the resignations of Carney, Holder, and Clapper tomorrow, all of us who don’t trust him would have to at least acknowledge that he’s trying to set a better standard for consequences of lying to the public. But all of us know that he will do nothing of the sort.
Instead, he will continue to give speeches where he expresses incredulity that the public wouldn’t trust him and his administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/350616/three-lies-public-must-have-consequences-jim-geraghty

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government” Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government”  Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

 

Way back when CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson split from the sycophantic MSM and began frankly reporting the Fast & Furious scandal in unflinching honesty, Obama’s White House and Dept. of Justice began harassing her for refusing to ‘do what the other reporters are doing,’ and putting Obama and Holder in a bad light.

MSM Cover-Up Confirmed by "Bordergate" Reporter! Whitehouse Furious for Not Complying![/url]

 Now, reporters once considered “friends” or “safe” are being singled out, threatened with loss of access and credentials, and verbally abused for their similar refusal to toe the Obama White House line.

 

Last week, BobWoodward took the Obama spin on the sequester head-on and revealed how he had led the way with it during budget negotiations.

"Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened? …

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

He immediately drew the wrath of not just the White House insiders, but of those in the MSM seeking to re-affirm their allegiance and commitment to all things Obama.

"Appearing on CNN Wednesday, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said a “very senior person” at the White House warned him that he would “regret doing this,” referring to his outspoken criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the impending forced cuts known as the sequester.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward told CNN host Wolf Blitzer. Woodward apparently went on to criticize Obama further over the sequester the same day he received the warning from the White House.

“It makes me very uncomfortable for the White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”[/exnews]

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-very-senior-white-house-official-warned-me-id-regret-attacking-obama-over-the-sequester/[/url]

[url]http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-on-white-house-threat-it-makes-me-very-uncomfortable-to-have-the-white-house-telling-reporters-youre-going-to-regret-doing-something-that-you-believe-in/[/url]

 

Of course, those members of the MSM pro-Obama clique immediately attacked Woodward, instead of the underlying story!

[exnews] Progressives are throwing a series of virtual flowerpots at veteran journalist Bob Woodward, following his stepped-up criticism of President Barack Obama’s attempt to raise taxes by hyping the sequester budget trims. …

The pile-on by the president’s allies follows Woodward’s recent statements that Obama is walking away from the 2011 budget-deal by calling for more tax increases, that he is hyping the impact of the sequester cuts, and that he was allegedly threatened by Obama’s top economic adviser, Gene Sperling.

The supposed threat came Feb. 22 when Sperling tried to get Woodward to back down from his conclusion that Obama is “moving the goalposts” from the 2011 budget deal.[/exnews]

[url]http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/woodward-under-fire-as-white-house-allies-seek-to-discredit-sequester-reporting/[/url]

Even so,Woodward stood steadfast, going so far as to describe the Obama administration’s behavior as “madness.”

[exnews] "Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-republicans-2013-2[/url]

 

Now, we learn that the Obama White House was not limited in its anger and vitriol to just one reporter; but, that it has spread to include others who’ve considered themselves “friends” and supporters of the Obama administration.

 

Lanny Davis, President Clinton’s former aide, has gone ‘on the record’ to recount a similar scenario of vicious attacks and not-so-veiled threats to their livelihoods and those of their employers.

[exnews]Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."[/exnews]

[url]http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0[/url]

[url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/28/longtime-dem-lanny-davis-also-reports-white-house-threat] Longtime Dem Lanny Davis Also Reports White House Threat[/url]

 

As if these were not enough, former Obama ally Ron Fournier, of the same [i]Washington Times[/i], reports that he too has been subjected to such viciousness that he has terminated his relationship with a formerly valuable White House insider due to his contact’s defense of the Obama agenda and verbal abuse and threats.

[exnews] Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.

Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.

 …

I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. … The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228[/url]

 

The MSM has not only abandoned its obligations to “speak truth to power,” but is fighting over who can remain closest to the White House; which has created its own media apparatus, “Organizing For Action” (OFA). To curry favor and ensure acceptance from Obama and his closest advisers, they are ever more resolute in their determination to join the team of presidential advisers, spin-meisters and spokespeople.

[url= http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-press-officially-abdicates-its-role/] The Press Officially Abdicates Its Role[/url]

Now, those who’ve abandoned the chase, and returned to their journalistic roots are paying the price in loss of opportunity, access and the support of their colleagues.

 

So, who says “there’s no such thing as media bias,” now; when even the White House believes it can safely threaten those who no longer toe the line?

 

 

Jw

"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data PROVES No Warming!

I often look at news and information sites and sources for views that are NOT the same as my own.

I often find things that aren't available elsewhere, and which can be truly enlightening. I especially enjoy foreign sources who have no agenda on U. S. political or social issues.

Reviewing the latest information from pro-AGW advocates, I came across a "tool" that gave trends and statistical analysis of climate data. What a surprise!

Actually, the "no warming" is proven by several independent studies AND supported by the pro-AGW site "skeptical science."

Here's what their own data reveal (recently acknowledged and cited by such AGW "luminaries" as Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and the MET Office) for land sea and satellite observations:

Satellite
For RSS, NO significant warming for 23 years.
Trend 0.130 ± 0.136 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.143 ± 0.173 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Land/ocean
For Hacrut3, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.098 ±- 0.113 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hacrut4, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.098 ± 0.111 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS, NO significant warming for 17 years.
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

For NOAA, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.090 ± 0.106 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Land
For NOAA, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.139 ± 0.203 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997

For BEST, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.182 ± 0.243 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
...

These guys are often cited as authority for "debunking" AGW skeptics, but their own figures support the lack of significant warming.

What alarmists ignore is that the IPCC and many other warmists have "projected" an exponential increase in temperature correlative with the rise of CO2 (e.g., the "Hockey Stick" illusion).

This is clearly and undeniably NOT happening; the the alomst oracle-like "models" and "projections" are wrong.

What the AGW dogma ignores is that the temperature plateaued when it would have skyrocketed if their "climate science" was even a close approximation of reality.

You either deliberately ignore this, or you choose to misdirect with an incomplete comparison of trends.

CO2 levels are growing across the globe in "developing" countries and economies (while the US and some parts of the EU have seen declines). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far above what alarmists have contended would pass a "tipping point" beyond which average land and ocean temperatures would rise faster than ever before.

That is NOT happening.

Of course, one of the principal determinants of true science is "falsifiability;" and this incongruence of reality and predition renders the entire AGW alarmism FALSE. The hypothesis has been disporven,, as even Jim Hansen this week acknowledged.

The ever-liberal Economist has for years toed the official UK political line that AGW is real. But, even now they acknowledge that the science is not settled.

 

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
. . .
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. . . The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs [Global Circulation Models]. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures.

www.economist.com...

Here's the illustration the Economist uses to illustrate part of its recognition of the failure of AGW alarmisism:

Here it is annotated:

And, what are some of the results of this ignorant denialism, according to the article?

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

www.economist.com...

It's so ironic and laughable to see the AGW faithful now assuming the role of "DENIERS" as their models fall apart before their eyes; and, as the predictions, assumptions and projections of 30, 20, and 10 years ago are time after time proven FALSE!

Climate is alway changing.
AGW acolytes seem to ignore the cycles:
the “Great Medieval Warm Period” (800 to 1300), the “Little Ice Age” (1500 to 1850), and smaller trends like a cooling period between 1880 and 1915… a warming period from 1915 to 1945… a cooling period in the first half of the 20th Century!!

But they also ignore the fact that their models are absolutely unable to account for the plateau while CO2 SOARS.

They have used the epithet of "Denier" as if it proved that their views of science and climate are invariable and incapable of challenge.

 

deny ignorance
indeed

jw