Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria ~ By Michael Bastasch

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

Being that I am not a scientist, I'm not sure that I understand everything discussed in this article, so I can not say with complete confidence that the global warming theories have been disproved. But what I can say with absolute conviction is that Global Warming doesn't appear to have the unanimity of everyone in the various fields of science, as the various academic and government authorities want us to believe.

Forgive me, then, for being a global warming denier or climate change skeptic. I always have been since the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) agitators first came on the scene. Or, maybe I should say, ever since everything changed and they went from fear mongering about global cooling to somehow transforming into global cooking. And when that didn't work, especially after the East Anglia Climate Research Unit fraud was revealed, it was reverted to Plan C: Climate Change. However, when Al Gore profited big-time off of the global warming thing known as carbon credits, and that cutting back on American industrialization efforts to limit carbon emissions was a Marxist ruse to transform America and set up a global government, that should eliminate ALL doubts of what a scam it is. Just sayin'...

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Michael Bastasch

By Michael Bastasch

March 31, 2015 @ 10:07 PM

From DailyCaller.com

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

~~~ READ MORE on DailyCaller.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

I wanted to be a scientist ~ By Patrice Lewis

In reading this column by Patrice, I was reminded of something I wrote back in January, called "The Religion of Consensus Science." Fortunately, there are many more people than just Patrice and I that know about the corruption of science, especially when it comes to the way scientific studies that are funded by various government agencies. Again, as Patrice will say in this column, FOLLOW THE MONEY! And, as Patrice points out, the best example of this problem is the hysteria that was promoted by Al Gore about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Not all science is controversial or influenced by government opinion even if it is government funded – merely those fields that can add to government power grabs and reduce our personal liberties (light bulbs, cap-and-trade, etc.).


I grieve that science is no longer the lofty and noble endeavor I once thought it was. I still believe in the purity of the Scientific Method and the wonders that true and honest scientists have discovered.


But remember: "Whoever controls the environmental rules controls the economy and our choices." Beware of "science" that is determined only to "prove" things that can enslave us.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: March 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

All I ever wanted to be when I grew up was a scientist.

While other girls my age dreamed of becoming singers or actresses, I dreamed of being an ethologist. Science had a luster of nobility and integrity that appealed to me. I wanted to be another Jane Goodall, living outdoors and studying wildlife for months on end. That was the life for me!

I entered college in 1980 and studied zoology. During the summers, I worked enthusiastically as a field assistant to Ph.D. students conducting thesis research on marmots, deer and squirrels. I was thrilled to be involved in real scientific studies.

Life went on. After college, I got a corporate job working in agricultural technology because biology field research jobs were few and far between. But the science itch hadn't left me, and seven years after graduating from college my husband and I moved to Oregon, in part to continue my education.

Life went on. I got my Master's degree in Environmental Education. We started a home woodworking business. I got pregnant with our first child, then our second. I worked seasonally as a field biologist for several years (spotted owls, red tree voles, goshawks, etc.) while we juggled work to keep our girls out of day care. As family life took priority and my attention became diverted elsewhere, my involvement in science became distant. But the appeal never faded.

That's why it is with sorrow that I realize a significant amount of scientific research is corrupt and fraudulent. How can that be?

In an essay entitled "How government corrupts science," Dr. Arthur Robinson defines a scientist – a true scientist – as "a person who seeks the truth about the world we can see by means of direct observations of that world. He often originates hypotheses about how the things in the world work and then tests those hypotheses with experiments and observations. Entirely on the basis of experiments or observations, he refines or rejects hypotheses and extends his knowledge."

Most people don't enter science to defraud. Most enter for the same reasons I did – a desire to learn new things about the natural world. Then how can something as elemental as science become corrupt?

Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of government. If government funds research, then the research results must (almost by definition) reflect the government's agenda. The sad truth is many federally funded scientists have become political lackeys, spouting whatever nonsense the government says they should spout and giving it the veneer of credibility because of a few letters after their names.

We tend to elevate scientists to towering status because they possess great knowledge and have the ability to draw conclusions based on unbiased data. We think just because someone has academic credentials, his methods are sound, his ethics above reproach and his conclusions infallible.

But such is not always the case. It's the old rule of "Follow the money." Just as we would never trust data concluding that smoking is harmless if the only study was conducted by Phillip Morris, so we must logically deduce that any studies funded by the government only conclude what the government wants us to see – regardless of the truth.

Of course not all scientists are fraudulent. To make such a statement would be, well, scientifically inaccurate. But the honest scientists are often pummeled into silence and refused publishing opportunities if they deviate from the authorized agenda. We only hear from the corrupt scientists – the political lackeys – because the mainstream media are ignorant of the Scientific Method, and, being in the pocket of the government, they report only what the government gives them to report. Even peer-reviewed scientific journals are not immune to suppressing papers that disagree with a predetermined agenda.

What a mess.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their 'science' collapses

It's again time for another great James Delingpole column (or blog) to contribute to the anti-AGW material I've been checking out today. Delingpole never disappoints me.

Sorry chaps, it won’t wash. The debate has moved on. It’s not about “the science” any more. (Not that it ever was). It’s about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government.

By James Delingpole

Last updated: March 5th, 2010

A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:

“It was a quite aggressive and defensive gesture which was noticeable when he was attempting to dismiss you (talking about peer review). A definite body-language sign of being rattled. He’s definitely uncomfortable about what’s occurring and others will have spotted that as well.”

Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: (Hat tip: Marc Morano)

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

And consider this tragic response from the editor of the US magazine Skeptical Inquirer when faced with declining readership. Despite its name, the Skeptical Inquirer has tended to adopt a none-too-sceptical position on AGW. This has annoyed one or two readers who have been cancelling their subscriptions in disgust. The editor Kendrick Frazier seems to imagine that this is not a reflection on his editorial policy but on his readership’s ‘false consciousness’ – as he shows in this robust editorial. (hat tip: Philip Thomas)...

READ FULL STORY at Telegraph.co.uk

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Clash over 'global warming' ratcheted up another degree

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," says U.K. writer James Delingpole of the Telegraph.  There was never anything more true. After you read this column, you will soon realize just how nervous the global warming scammers are getting that their religion of consensus science is continuing to fall apart. And when the press even covers the startling news of such things as ClimateGate, their desperation grows to all new levels...

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


~ From the Petition Project, which now list tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse the above statement

Congressman wants funding stopped; scientists plan retaliation campaign

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 05, 2010 ~ 9:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The clash over "global warming" has been ratcheted up another degree this week, with one member of Congress demanding U.S. taxpayer funding for the research be halted and scientists who have been accused of slipshod and deceptive work planning a campaign of retaliation against their critics.

The controversy moved to the front burner late last year when a series of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain that indicate scientists were hiding and manipulating data and trying to marginalize critics.

The revelations were significant, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed two findings Dec. 7 that concluded greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's rulings could mean thousands of dollars in additional taxes for individual consumers.

Now, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, is citing the doubts about the integrity of "climate change" science in a letter asking for an accounting of U.S. taxpayer support for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

The U.S. since 1994 has given some $50 million to the panel, and contributions under Obama now have doubled.

Barton, writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the State Department to stop any contributions until an up-to-date audit is released.

"In recent months, the IPCC has come under significant criticism for the quality of its principal work product: the periodic assessments of the causes ofclimate change and related impacts from a changing climate," Barton wrote.

"Various reports have identified problems concerning quality-control procedures, peer review, and political influence on the assessment writeups, raising serious questions about the scientific integrity of the enterprise," he said.

The congressman asked Clinton to provide details of U.S. funding and state what controls – if any – have been placed on the funds.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports "global warming" scientists are preparing to strike back at their critics.

The report by Stephen Dinan said the newspaper had obtained private e-mails in which climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences said they were tired of "being treated like political pawns."

The e-mails revealed a strategy to form a nonprofit group that would challenge "global warming" critics in public newspaper ads. One suggested "an outlandlishly aggressively partisan approach" that would gut credibility of critics.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails obtained by the newspaper.

Many of the scientists in the "climate change" advocacy camp have been "under siege," the newspaper reported, since the East Anglia e-mails revealed discussions about skewing data to push chosen results.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said scientists should be shoring up their own research and eliminating mistakes.

"Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research," she told the newspaper.

In the Telegraph in the U.K., writer James Delingpole who has followed the "Climategate" scandal as the purloined e-mails have been dubbed, said the arguments are beginning to border on paranoia.

The issue, he said, no longer has anything to do with climate, global warming or even science.

"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," he wrote.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Where the jobs are ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.

Everyone, except perhaps the president and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.

Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!

Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people – at no cost to the government.

Congress could open the oil-rich areas offshore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America – at no cost to the government.

Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the president and his minions in the majority chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year and in many cases will last only a few months. How dumb is that?

When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the president wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?

This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this president alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrongheadedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the polar regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.

Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.

READ FULL STORY >

Tea partier shares 'single greatest threat to America'

From WorldNetDaily

Climate alarmism dubbed bigger danger to nation than terrorism, nuclear weapons

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 05, 2010 ~ 11:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

NASHVILLE – "When it comes to your freedom in day-to-day life, environmentalists are the greatest threat to America now and America in the future."

That is the stern warning Junkscience.com publisher and self-described libertarian Steve Milloy told a packed room at the first national tea-party convention in Nashville today.

Milloy castigated both Republican and Democrat politicians for their global alarmism, saying those on the "right" have failed Americans because, "Republicans have been terrible when it comes to environmental issues," he said. "Don't even get me started about the nit-wit governor in California."

A resounding applause erupted from a crowd of 600 attendees.

He continued, "By contrast, there's the left. Although the left has think-tanks, they don't really need them. Their thinking was done for them by Karl Marx and hasn't changed much since. … The left rarely thinks; it usually just acts with reckless abandon."

Milloy called for the tea-party movement to become more engaged at every level of government in the battle against global-warming alarmism.

"Through global-warming alarmism and cap-and-trade regulation, the greens will use the force of government to tell us where we can work, where we can live, how many children we can have, how much energy we can use, how much water we can use, what sort of food we should eat, what the temperature of our homes can be, what sort of cars we can drive," he said. "In California, regulators are already deciding what color cars we can drive."

Modern environmentalist has nothing to do with saving the planet, Milloy explained, calling it a method in which socialists and totalitarians advance their social and political agendas.

READ FULL STORY >

The Religion of Consensus Science ~ By John Kubicek

From Breakdown of America (BOA)

By John Kubicek January 25, 2010

Above: An illustration of how Consensus Science Works: Al Gore and the ObamaCorps Nazis

What if I were to tell you that there are people who are willing to tell you anything, even if it isn’t the truth, for just one simple reason: To control you. Does that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory brewing? Oh, I so much wish it was. I wish it was just the residue from some long-past episode of the X-Files. But it isn’t. The other night, I was alerted via twitter that there was a great column, which was actually the transcript to a speech, by Michael Crichton. I’m sure it was the title that drew my attention: “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” It took some time in reading, but I finally got down to the point of the speech:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

And if you think that was some intense common sense, that was just the tip of the iceberg. I read that if you have a belief that is based on faith, where there is a realm that is completely unproven by science, it would be a “religion”. That’s where there’s a slight problem: If you tell a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it… The “sheeple” can be told that there is a consensus among scientists, and there is no longer a reason for debate. And if you do dare to bring up anything contrary to the “consensus,” say bye-bye to your career. READ FULL STORY >