Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    July 2024
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘pseudoscience’

Children, chicken, and aggression

Posted by Richard on May 1, 2014

Breitbart posted a UPI story about a Cornell University research study that sounds like a parody, but isn’t. Researchers had some kids, age 6-10, eat pieces of chicken with their hands off the bone, and had others eat pieces of cut-up boneless chicken with a fork. They determined that eating the cut-up chicken made kids more docile and eating food they had to hold and bite made them more aggressive.

How did they determine the relative aggressiveness? A commenter on the story explained:

… Look at the study’s actual “aggression measure” : Compliance with instructions to say seated after eating or remain within 9′ f table after eating

That is NOT a measure of aggression or disobedience — that is a measure of being a kid or a compliant slave to meaningless instructions!

Study actually concludes that eating boneless chicken makes your kid less of a kid, less independent, less fun, and a mindless idiot who obeys pointless instructions from authority no matter how silly.

No doubt this absurd bit of “scientific research” was paid for by your tax dollars.

Personally, I think it’s raaacist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Yet another climate scare

Posted by Richard on August 3, 2010

You've got to hand it to the True Believers in anthropogenic global warming — they just don't quit. Some of their leading lights were pretty thoroughly disgraced, and the laughable "investigations" that purported to clear them have been torn to shreds. But that doesn't stop them. They just crank up a new computer model, feed it a handful of dubious data, and it spits out a new prediction of the dire consequences of climate change.

Case in point: Princeton "environmental scientist" Michael Oppenheimer and some economist colleagues have come up with a computer model predicting that, by 2080 (!), as much as 10% of Mexico's adult population, or 6.7 million people, will migrate to the US due to climate change. Really.

The University of Colorado's Roger Pielke (who thinks "climate change is real and worthy of our attention") didn't mince words regarding the value of this study: 

To be blunt, the paper is guesswork piled on top of "what ifs" built on a foundation of tenuous assumptions. …

To use this paper as a prediction of anything would be a mistake. It is a tentative sensitivity study of the effects of one variable on another, where the relationship between the two is itself questionable but more importantly, dependent upon many other far more important factors. … It is almost as if the paper is written to be misinterpreted.

… The paper reflects a common pattern in the climate impacts literature of trying to pin negative outcomes on climate change using overly simplistic methods and ignoring those factors other than climate which have far more effect.

A commenter on Pielke's post pointed out that the math makes little sense:

"The silly PNAS paper makes three mistakes"

add another oops..

Total mexican labor forces 46.2 million
Percentage involved in agriculture 13.7%.

46.2 * 13.7% = 6.3 million agricultural workers.

Projecting more then 100% of the Mexican Agricultural labor force emigrating due to 'tough times on the farm' seems somewhat unrealistic.

Tom Nelson noted that, according to a 2007 NewsBusters post, Michael Oppenheimer is a "science adviser" to the radical Environmental Defense Fund who helped NBC News smear "global warming deniers." 

I can't wait to see what the next climate scare will be. I'm surprised, really, that someone hasn't come up with a computer model blaming climate change for all the foreclosures, the persistent unemployment, and the failure of the economy to recover during "Recovery Summer." After all, that "blame Bush" mantra is getting pretty stale. 

UPDATE: It occurs to me that, as I was writing the above, I forgot that this stupid study projects migration through 2080 — I suppose because that's such a ludicrously long period of time that it didn't really sink in. That means that both Oppenheimer's claim that the total migration amounts to 10% of the current adult Mexican population and the observation of the commenter I quoted that it represents more than 100% of the current agricultural labor force are pointless and meaningless.

Over the 70 years covered by the computer model's projection, most of the current population of Mexico will have died and been replaced by succeeding generations (and total population will have grown). How the total number of migrants over such a long period compares with the current population doesn't matter. How does the annual rate compare with the current rate? The study claims up to 6.7 million will migrate over 70 years. OK, that's a maximum of not quite 100,000 per year.

In 2008, FAIR (an anti-illegal-immigration organization) claimed the annual rate of illegal immigration was 500,000, and they cited an INS figure of 350,000. So the Oppenheimer study's claim of what amounts to less than 100,000 is far less than the current level. Are they saying the current rate will increase by that amount? That's not what the news stories about the study suggest. They suggest that the 6.7 million number is absolute, not relative. If so, their computer model predicts a significant decline in illegal immigration due to "climate change."

If the study suggests an incremental increase by that amount — well, they should say so. And it's fairly modest as such things go — I'll bet the rate varies by more than 20% depending on economic conditions on both sides of the border. 

Either way, this study is garbage, and the way they present it is misleading, mendacious fear-mongering. Typical of global warming "science." 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Carbon pollution

Posted by Richard on June 9, 2010

Lots of people in the blogosphere are laughing over the latest evidence that Sen. Barbara Boxer is dumber than a box of rocks. Ed Morrissey has the video clip and money quote:

Let’s see how Senator Ma’am’s priorities work in this revealing clip from her speech earlier today in the Senate. We’ve had four terrorist attacks in less than a year, two of which succeeded in killing people and another two which only failed because of the incompetence of the terrorist. Iran is a year or less away from getting a nuclear weapon. Turkey is rapidly sliding towards Islamism. North Korea is doing their best to restart the Korean War.

And what keeps Barbara Boxer awake at night? A raging case of the vapors:

I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way. And that’s why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue, so we can create those new technologies that get us off this foreign oil.

Yeah, claiming that "carbon pollution" and "climate change" are greater threats to our national security than Iran, al Qaeda, or North Korea is pretty silly.

But what strikes me as absurd to the point of being surreal is that a carbon-based life form, standing on a planet full of carbon-based life forms, where carbon is one of the most abundant elements, would speak seriously of "carbon pollution" — as if the fourth-most-abundant element in the universe were some dangerous, unnatural substance being introduced into our environment by those evil chemical companies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ClimateGate, the NASA version

Posted by Richard on January 23, 2010

What little credibility the promoters of global warming hysteria had remaining has now been shredded. From Investor's Business Daily (emphasis added):

We recently commented on how our space agency for two years refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has had to repeatedly correct its climate figures.

In a report on global warming on KUSI television by Weather Channel founder and iconic TV weatherman John Coleman, that reticence has been traced to the deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data by NASA.

As Coleman noted in a KUSI press release, NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, are accused of "creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based."

Joseph D'Aleo, of, said the analysis found NASA "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations." The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

E. Michael Smith, a computer programming expert who worked with D'Aleo, said he found "patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked liked dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." The more he looked, the more he found "patterns of deletion that could not be accidental."

Smith argues that the decrease in stations used and the selectivity of locations make NASA's data and conclusions suspect. D'Aleo goes further, saying such cherry-picking and data manipulation are a "scientific travesty" committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.

I wonder — if we graphed the amount of scientific fraud uncovered in the field of climatology over the past few decades, would it look like a hockey stick?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

More climategate fraud

Posted by Richard on December 3, 2009

A quick update from Instapundit (for the benefit of my legions of readers who aren't familiar with that obscure Tennessee blogger):

OOPS: Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud. “A former top climate scientist who had become one of the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company.”

Related, from the ClimateGate emails: “We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”

'Nuff said. These "scientists" promoting AGW are both charlatans and crooks. They're not just fraudulently promoting their ideological agenda, they're also enriching themselves in the process. 

But by all means, check out Instapundit's links. Especially the second one's quoted notes from Ian "Harry" Harris. And check out the the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, apparently from the same person. And those of you familiar with the FORTRAN and/or IDL programming languages might be interested in this post and its links (thanks, David B.).

Given that, according to Shakespeare, "the better part of valor is discretion," maybe the world's leaders should just cancel the Copenhagen climate summit. After all, its entire agenda is premised on now-discredited conclusions created by sloppy and unscientific computer models using raw data that was deliberately massaged to hide the truth and then destroyed.

And maybe someone should tell John Travolta, Sheryl Crow, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Oprah Winfrey, Trudie Styler (wife of Sting), and other strident advocates of making the rest of us lower our carbon emissions, not to fly their private jets to Copenhagen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Hadley CRU destroyed climate data

Posted by Richard on November 28, 2009

David Aitken (who really should be posting this stuff at his blog instead of just emailing his friends) called it, "Not just the smoking gun, but the bullet." The UK TimesOnline reported that "the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures" destroyed the raw data it used to arrive at its conclusions in support of anthropogenic global warming (AGW):

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

… Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Well, that explains why they've refused to reveal their raw data and stonewalled all previous requests. One of the core principles of the scientific method is transparency — you share with others exactly how you arrived at your conclusion so that they can replicate your results or disprove them. The proponents of the AGW theory have fought such openness every step of the way, as if they had something to hide. It's reasonable to conclude that they do. Indeed, it would be foolish and naive to assume that they do not.

Some recent comments on the TimesOnline post put things in perspective nicely: 

Joe Horner wrote:

"Dear Inland Revenue, I enclose my latest accounts. Please note that I accidentally destroyed all the original invoices but I promise they were all entered correctly. Honest"

Truely unbelievable!


Whitbread Tankard wrote:

One of them said in the leaked emails that he'd rather delete the raw data than release it, maybe he did just that!
Truth Orator, yes one could theoretically back out the corrections but that in turn implies trust in those values being archived correctly. What we've seen so far is a rather chaotic organisation when it comes to documentation etc.

The whole thing is an utter disgrace and a blot on British scientific work.

Whitbread Tankard wrote:
One of them said in the leaked emails that he'd rather delete the raw data than release it, maybe he did just that!
David Aitken wrote:
Reversing the alterations is probably impossible because the alterations were probably done by 1 or more complex algorithms that may no longer exist. It's not just a matter of adding or subtracting a simple number.
In a nutshell: The "consensus" about AGW isn't about science, it's about politics. I'm not 100% certain whether AGW exists or not (although the correlation of global temperature with solar activity strongly suggests that it doesn't). Neither are they. The difference is that they don't care. Their goal is to promote the AGW agenda, regardless of what the evidence says. They're socialists with an agenda, not scientists pursuing the truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Richard on January 3, 2009

 Two quotes for today (both from a Late Late Show rerun):

I took a test to be an American. What did you do?
      — Craig Ferguson

It's so cold I saw Al Gore burning tires.
      — Larry the Cable Guy

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Polar bear numbers

Posted by Richard on May 15, 2008

Estimated number of polar bears in 1970: 8,000 – 10,000

Estimated number of polar bears today: 20,000 – 40,000 

Estimated increase in Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island polar bear populations in the last 20 years: 160% 

Percentage of relevant scientific forecasting principles applied by Dept. of Interior research studies predicting polar bear decline due to global warming: 10 – 15% 

Number of reputable peer-reviewed studies published since last October (by NASA and the journal Nature) showing that the melting of Arctic sea ice in recent years is not caused by global warming: 2

Degree of confidence that the models and predictions and projections about Arctic sea ice and polar bear populations will prove to be accurate: Zip, zero, zilch, nada 

Number of lawsuits environmentalist will file to stop human activities that generate CO2, now that the Interior Dept. has listed polar bears as a threatened species anyway: Countless

Thanks, Bush administration.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What consensus?

Posted by Richard on December 23, 2007

A minority report from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee provides further evidence that there is no "consensus" among scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming. The report names and quotes over 400 prominent scientists (several of whom have won Nobel Prizes in their fields) who dissent from the IPCC climate claims, and especially from the even more absurd predictions made by Al Gore.

The number of dissenters from the "consensus" view who are willing to speak out has grown significantly in the past year:

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK)  In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

The committee minority report makes it clear that the "consensus," such as it is, exists due to fear, intimidation, and the systematic exclusion of climate skeptics from conferences, committees, and journals (emphasis added):

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidationLINK]

The report also points out that small elites in control of the scientific organizations supposedly backing the anthropogenic global warming theory created the "consensus" (emphasis added):

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK )

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

I've read barely a fraction of the 400-odd scientists' statements included in the report — basically just skimmed a few, slowing down when something caught my eye. If you're interested, but not obsessed, I recommend either that approach or searching repeatedly for "IPCC" — that will take you to some really interesting statements. And I recommend reading "Attachment Number 1" (search for that) near the end. It's the Dec. 13 open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon signed by over 100 prominent scientists, and it pulls no punches. Here's the first paragraph (emphasis added):

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

I'll toss out one more quote that caught my eye (emphasis added):

Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. "There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population," he said, adding, "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator." Rancourt added, "Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class." (LINK)

The notion that temperatures at some point in the recent past (like 1970, when scientists thought an ice age was coming?) were just right strikes me as absurd on its face. The notion that a degree or two of warming from that "proper" level will be profoundly catastrophic strikes me as bordering on mental illness.

(HT: Doug Ross @ Journal)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Convenient falsehoods

Posted by Richard on October 11, 2007

A British judge identified 11 specific ways in which Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is inaccurate or misleading and ruled that the government (which wants the film shown in every school in the country) can distribute the film only if it complies with certain restrictions (emphasis added):

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The High Court decision was only a partial victory for truck driver and New Party member Stewart Dimmock, who sued to have the film banned from schools completely as "irremediable" propaganda, but Justice Burton's ruling left no doubt that it was a victory (emphasis added):

Awarding Mr Dimmock two thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000 against the government, the judge said: "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."

These sections ban the political indoctrination of schoolchildren and require political views to be presented in a balanced way.

Of course, that didn't keep two of Britain's most prestigious news organizations from putting a somewhat different spin on it. Here are a couple of the results from a Google News search (emphasis added):

Guardian Unlimited, UK – 5 hours ago
A parent has failed in his legal action to prevent Al Gore's climate-change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, being shown in schools in England.
Judge backs Gore film in schools
BBC News, UK – 6 hours ago
Secondary schools in England are free to show the climate change film by former US Vice-President Al Gore, a High Court judge has confirmed.

If you follow the link to the BBC story, you'll see that they've subsequently retitled it to the more neutral, but nonsensical "Judge rules on Gore schools film" — what's a "Gore schools film"? The Guardian story is the source of the quote saying Dimmock "substantially won," but you don't learn that Dimmock hasn't really "failed" until you're 13 paragraphs in. 

At least British mainstream media reported the story. The only major U.S. outlet to mention it, according to Google News, was Fox News. The New York Times mentioned it, but only in their "notes on the news" blog, The Lede

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

More climate change chicanery

Posted by Richard on October 3, 2007

Let's say you're writing a children's book about global warming and you want to scare them with your good friend Al Gore's impending doom scenario. A graph showing that increased CO2 levels caused global temperature increases would help, wouldn't it? But what do you do if the graph shows exactly the opposite — that for the past 650,000 years, increases in temperature have always preceded increases in CO2 levels? Well, you could just mislabel the graph and misrepresent the data:

Sept. 1 saw the release of "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," co-authored by Al Gore acolyte and "Inconvenient Truth" co-producer Laurie David and former advertising copywriter and environmental activist Cambria Gordon.

On page 18 of the David-Gordon book, the authors present a graph of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures for the last 650,000 years.

The graph is accompanied by text that reads, "The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower the temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by looking at the graph on the left …

"What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising carbon dioxide to rising temperature, scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse gas pollution and global warming."

"What really makes [the David-Gordon] graph 'amazing' is that it's dead wrong," says a new report from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

"In order to contrive a visual representation for their false claim that carbon dioxide controls temperature change, David and co-author Cambria Gordon present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and carbon dioxide graph that falsely reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature," says the SPPI report.

"The actual temperature curve in the chart was switched with the actual carbon dioxide curve. That is, the authors mislabeled the blue curve as temperature and the red curve as carbon dioxide concentration."

The publisher, Scholastic, acknowledged the "error" and agreed to correct the graph — but only the graph, not the accompanying text. Because correcting the text would destroy the whole premise that our CO2 emissions are driving global warming, and would thus undermine their agenda. So they'll leave the youngsters bewildered by a graph that doesn't seem to match the words accompanying it (encouraging them to conclude, erroneously, that the corrected graph is actually mislabeled). 

Fortunately, as Steve Milloy noted in the above story, there's another book about climate change for children, The Sky's Not Falling! Why It's OK to Chill About Global Warming, that could help calm kids who are increasingly fearful about the future. Unfortunately, it's written by an academic, not by the wife of a big-shot Hollywood producer and a former ad writer and "activist." And it's not going to be promoted to a fare-thee-well by its publisher, the media, and the education establishment, like the David-Gordon book. 

So — like Michael Mann's bogus "hockey stick" graph, which manipulated out of existence the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in order to persuade people that 20th-century warming was unprecedented — the false claim that atmospheric CO2 increases precede global warming will no doubt remain something that "everybody knows" among the cognoscenti.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

‘Duh’ study of the week

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2007

I'm shocked, simply shocked. Cutting-edge social science research (probably federally funded) has uncovered a couple of astonishing facts. These findings further confirm the disturbing recent news that men and women are different. The groundbreaking study determined that (1) men prefer good-looking women, and (2) women are choosier than men.

Researchers questioned men and women prior to a speed-dating session about their preferences in a mate, and then compared those with their actual choices of people they'd like to meet with again. In another shocker, it seems that men and women both lie:

Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.

The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.

Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.

The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.

I can't wait to see what valuable insights into human nature science will reveal next.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pack ice and polar bears

Posted by Richard on February 7, 2007

You’ve no doubt seen the picture, accompanying a story about global warming and tugging at your heartstrings. It shows two polar bears atop what appears to be a remnant of an ice floe. Why, it looks like the poor dears have been stranded by the terrible consequences of global climate change. I feel so ashamed of my SUV. [sob!]

Well, Dan Riehl uncovered the real story behind the photo. For starters, the New York Times had the photo credit wrong — it wasn’t taken by Dan Crosbie, but by an associate of his on the same expedition, Amanda Byrd. I wonder if she’s any relation to the famous explorer. For another thing, the polar bears aren’t stranded on a rapidly melting floe, they’re exploring a wave-carved ice sculpture (maybe to better spot seals) near a large sheet of ice, as is clear from some of Byrd’s other photos of them. Another expedition photo shows someone standing guard with a shotgun in case the bears attack. The expedition encountered unexpectedly thick ice.

Riehl not only found several examples of the picture being misrepresented to sway people’s emotions, he also found an article in which an "environmental journalist" and a climate scientist revel in the fact that reporting about climate change has become one-sided, advocacy journalism.

Meanwhile, polar bears on ice floes are posing a problem in Iceland, which is experiencing a bitter winter with lots of pack ice (emphasis added):

Thick packs of ice, which have not been seen for almost 40 years, have been moving into the western fjords across some of the best fishing grounds, followed by bitter winds and plummeting temperatures. …

Communities living around the fjord of Dryafjordur, have noticed that their inlets have been filled with ice in recent weeks – ice drifting in from Greenland and carrying dozens of polar bears on their floes.

When chunks break off the bears become stranded, drifting helplessly on the floes. There have been a number of stories of bears making land around Iceland and having to be shot because they pose a danger to humans and livestock.

The return of pack ice to Iceland goes against all the forecasts of doom of global warming, although some forecasters think it may just be a climatic aberration.

When the empirical evidence fits the forecasters’ computer models, it proves their theory. When the evidence contradicts the models, it’s just an aberration. Ain’t the world of government-funded science wonderful? It’s so much more objective and honest when the checks are written by power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats with an agenda instead of by greedy oil company executives with an agenda.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Peace movement

Posted by Richard on November 20, 2006

The commitment to reason and dedication to science and logic that led some people to take World Jump Day seriously and that have always characterized the "reality-based community" have now led the Global Consciousness Project, in conjunction with Baring Witness, to promote a Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace. Elaib Harvey at The Brussels Journal summed it up nicely:

At last a way to stop Islamofascism, war, earthquakes and President George W Bush. The Global Orgasm is obviously the way.

The idea seems to be if countless millions are reaching a state of sexual ecstasy simultaneously on Friday 22nd of December then world peace will break out, Bush will indeed discover that Osama is quite a cute fellow after all, and that nasty fellow Ahmedinejad in Tehran will discover that the Isrealis are utter sweethearts.

This is the First Annual Solstice Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace, leading up to the December Solstice of 2012, when the Mayan Calendar ends with a new beginning.

For pity’s sake they even have a page pretending to prove the science – hosted at Princeton University!!

The "brains" behind this project are from Marin County, California — are you surprised?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »