Posts Tagged by Global Warming
NASA Scientists Call Out NASA for Unsubstantiated Climate Science
| April 11, 2012 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues |
Forty-nine former NASA scientists issued a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolton asking the NASA administration to refrain from using ‘unproven and unsupported remarks’ about climate science in their communications. This letter comes shortly after Jim Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies likened global warming to slavery.
Here is the full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
You can see a list of the 49 signatories here.
It seems that every aspect of American life has been taken over by environmental activists in the name of the new religion of environmentalism. The areas in which the United States has excelled in the past have been regulated out of existence. It is certainly affecting our energy production and the cost of everyday products that we are now having to buy from other countries, but that is not all. Even our beloved space program, NASA, is being stymied because of EPA regulations.
Drill Baby Drill! Rick Santorum on Global Warming (Video)
| January 1, 2012 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy |
I know the idea of global warming has made Al Gore rich (as well as others who have promoted it and benefited from the resulting change in whose pockets the money goes into. But does Global Warming really exist? Rising star of the GOP presidential candidacy says NO it doesn’t exist and we should drill everywhere. In fact, Rick Santorum told Rush Limbaugh earlier this month that global warming was based on ‘junk science.’. Pshaw!!!
When asked on Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier Santorum said that we should’ Drill everywhere’! He then said there is enough oil, coal and natural gas to last for centuries.
Who can disagree with that? Well I guess only those who see drilling in the United States as a bad thing and think we should only get our oil, coal and gas from unregulated sites overseas.
It is only common sense to drill here and reduce our dependence on foreign sources for our energy production. But the environmental propagandists prefer we don’t see the oil coming out of our own back yard. Forget the environment. Drill in places where its not as strictly regulated and help them make their fortunes by getting our energy resources from other countries while the rest of us have to pay exorbitant prices for oil, gas and coal.
I agree with Rick Santorun. Drill everywhere. Drill baby drill!!!!!
Frozen Planet Fakes Polar Bear Footage to Enhance Global Warming Message
| December 14, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues |
Well over eight million people became devoted fans of the BBC documentary ‘Frozen Planet’, only to now find out that it wasn’t so much a documentary as it was a movie. ‘Frozen Planet’ faked polar bear footage to advance their claims of the effects of global warming.
Mixing real Arctic shots with zoo scenes, documentary makers fooled the audience into believing the footage was gathered by intrepid cameramen in the brutal sub-zero wilderness.
It was actually filmed from the comfort of a wildlife park enclosure using bears in a man-made wood den.
During the carefully worded Frozen Planet commentary, Sir David Attenborough’s script failed to explain how the moving scene was made.
The movie’s narrator, Sir David Attenborough explains that the fake footage was done for the pleasure of the viewers, for the atmosphere of the movie and for the sake of the animals involved.
“The question is, during the middle of this scene when you are trying to paint what it is like in the middle of winter at the pole, to say ‘Oh, by the way, this was filmed in a zoo’.
“It ruins the atmosphere, and destroys the pleasure of the viewers and destroys the atmosphere you are trying to create.
“It’s not a falsehood and we don’t keep it secret either. But to say actually in the middle of that sequence, I mean how far do you take this?
“Do you say this is a penguin, but actually it was a different penguin colony than this one and this one is a different one? Come on, we were making movies.”
Yes, even though the ‘documentary’ professed to have been filmed in the Arctic, large portions were actually filmed in a German zoo using fake snow.
If you are devoted to a certain belief system, do you let the truth get in the way of promoting that belief system? Apparently not as evidenced by recent revelations of bogus poll data being used to promote opposition to the Pebble Mine Project and Dr. Ann Maest ignoring her own data to promote environmentalists claims against mining.
Really, are there any lows to which the environmentalists won’t go? Can we believe any of the propaganda they put out? They seem to believe their the ends justify their means. In reality they are just producing propaganda to move public opinion towards their position. Its nothing more than that.
NASA Data Suggests Global Warming Isn’t What Al Gore Says It Is!
| July 28, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues |
NASA data suggests that global warming isn’t quite what Al Gore and his followers say it is. Meaning that perhaps we aren’t destroying the Earth after all.
Does this mean that we won’t need to spend so much money on ‘green energy’ after all?
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
Will Al Gore and his global warming buddies have to give up their big carbon footprint jets and lifestyles if they aren’t making money off making the rest of us pay more for what they call ‘green’ energy. Well wouldn’t we all hate THAT!
More at Michelle Malkin.
Mitt Romney Global Warming Position is Disturbing
| July 7, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues |
Some people say we don’t need to worry about Mitt Romney global warming position, others say it is disturbing and explain why.
The president has a lot to do with the EPA’s agenda and how ardently it pursues it, with whether it is an ineffective paper tiger or a real tiger sinking its teeth into our personal freedoms while using its claws to rip away at the constitutional safeguards that underpin the liberties which allow a free market to thrive and prosper.
The EPA has recently released for comment several regulatory standards that will cost thousands of jobs in the coal and coal-fired electricity industries.
President Obama fully endorses these austere measures. He is famously on record as saying that someone may wish to build a new coal-fired power plant but he will put regulatory burdens on them so heavy they will make the building of it economically unfeasible. The EPA’s new emissions rules will not only make it hard to build a new coal generating plant but will threaten the existence of many plants already in operation, costing jobs.
Would a President Romney rein in the EPA and prevent it from implementing such destructive, job-killing, economically unproductive policies? Unsettling clues emerge from his actions toward such plants in his home state.
As governor in 2003, Romney rejected a request by Pacific Gas and Electric to delay tough new regulations put into effect by his state’s equivalent of the EPA aimed at cleaning up the emissions from similar types of power plants saying, “If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind… I will always come down on the side of public health.”
Simultaneously he accused just one of those plants as being “responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.” Compare Romney’s eerily similar remarks then with the EPA’s current claim that its new rules will prevent “up to 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 asthma attacks.”
Adding also, in a dig aimed particularly at oil and coal-fired generating plants, “that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming” Romney continued to explain his actions and explicitly connected them with climate change.
In order to protect public health, Romney is also quoted as saying then that he will “enforce without compromise” the Massachusetts regulations in question. The situations are so strikingly similar that one must ask, “Would a President Romney also be inclined to uncompromisingly enforce the EPA’s new emissions regulations on coal-fired power plants?” They do after all have the same supposedly health-related justification that he bought hook-line-and-sinker back in 2003.
And what of the claim that enforcing these regulations may cost jobs? He also blatantly stated then , “I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people.” So would a President Romney be at all phased by the job-killing aspect of the EPA’s new rules?
Unlike what Mr. French has suggested, Mitt Romney does not have to propose new policies in order to support the Left’s agenda and be troubling on the environment.
The president has a lot to do with the EPA’s agenda and how ardently it pursues it, with whether it is an ineffective paper tiger or a real tiger sinking its teeth into our personal freedoms while using its claws to rip away at the constitutional safeguards that underpin the liberties which allow a free market to thrive and prosper.
The EPA has recently released for comment several regulatory standards that will cost thousands of jobs in the coal and coal-fired electricity industries.
President Obama fully endorses these austere measures. He is famously on record as saying that someone may wish to build a new coal-fired power plant but he will put regulatory burdens on them so heavy they will make the building of it economically unfeasible. The EPA’s new emissions rules will not only make it hard to build a new coal generating plant but will threaten the existence of many plants already in operation, costing jobs.
Would a President Romney rein in the EPA and prevent it from implementing such destructive, job-killing, economically unproductive policies? Unsettling clues emerge from his actions toward such plants in his home state.
As governor in 2003, Romney rejected a request by Pacific Gas and Electric to delay tough new regulations put into effect by his state’s equivalent of the EPA aimed at cleaning up the emissions from similar types of power plants saying, “If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind… I will always come down on the side of public health.”
Simultaneously he accused just one of those plants as being “responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.” Compare Romney’s eerily similar remarks then with the EPA’s current claim that its new rules will prevent “up to 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 asthma attacks.”
Adding also, in a dig aimed particularly at oil and coal-fired generating plants, “that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming” Romney continued to explain his actions and explicitly connected them with climate change.
In order to protect public health, Romney is also quoted as saying then that he will “enforce without compromise” the Massachusetts regulations in question. The situations are so strikingly similar that one must ask, “Would a President Romney also be inclined to uncompromisingly enforce the EPA’s new emissions regulations on coal-fired power plants?” They do after all have the same supposedly health-related justification that he bought hook-line-and-sinker back in 2003.
And what of the claim that enforcing these regulations may cost jobs? He also blatantly stated then , “I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people.” So would a President Romney be at all phased by the job-killing aspect of the EPA’s new rules?
Unlike what Mr. French has suggested, Mitt Romney does not have to propose new policies in order to support the Left’s agenda and be troubling on the environment.
