Wednesday, March 31, 2010

And so it continues

NASA extrapolates climate data where data do not exist. What do you call that? This is even worse than the East Anglia CRU climate-gate.

Here's from WWUT:
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the emails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

More effective

If you want to help "save the Earth", there are much better ways than going on 60-minute lights abstinence. Yeah yeah, it's the thought.

Here are two links: 15 ways and 10 ways

Monday, March 29, 2010

Why Al likes the dark

I just got to link you to MMalkin's Earth Hour post.

In the end she says this, possibly why Al likes the dark:
My own theory for the thinking behind Earth Hour is that Al Gore and his fellow enviro-scammers have settled on going dark as the single best way to make sure nobody can see them pick-pocketing the world. 

It was always the plan ...

... that abortion will be funded in the new US healthcare reform bill. Kathleen Parker over at WaPo explains how this will be done. H/T Jill.

Under the new law, they can. There's nothing to stop them.
Here's why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all "required primary health care services," defined to include "health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians."
Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voilà.One may believe that poor women should have affordable access to abortion. This is a reasonable position and it is likely to be the result of this bill. But it is not what Americans have been led to believe is true, nor is it what most want. A January Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, down from 72 percent in December.
Prediction: Abortions will be performed at community health centers. You can bet your foreclosed mortgage on that. There was always a will by this administration, and now there's a way.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

How goes your Earth Hour?

That was last night in this part of the world. I celebrated Human Achievement Hour -- celebrating the fruits of man's mind (cfr. CEI). Like electricity!

Here's Tammy. Telling you what EH really is about.

Here's a thought: Since power plants are operated according to power forecasts, there are no power plants turned off during Earth Hour. How could that impact on "CO2 emissions"? A lot of turned off lights just made us grope in the dark. Then again, with "more efficient lighting", how much emissions are really cut? Oh yeah, its the symbolism.

Friday, March 26, 2010

They'll be getting a lot more

Sorry for my friends in the great US.  After much bullying from the administration on the healthcare reform, they are getting new draconian rules from their EPA on carbon emissions.  Also, sources have it that illegal immigration reform is just around the corner.

At least in RP, we only face, for the moment, conspiracy theories on failure of elections, on dumping of candidates, and on wanting to hold on to power (military takeover, judicial hanky-panky, people power, etc.).  Those, and six weeks of speeches, songs, and dance.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Speculation, not evidence

About five years ago, Michael Crichton gave a speech at the National Press Club Washington, DC, where he put forth his view on global warming. I hope you the read the whole speech found here. Food for thought for when Earth Hour comes around in a few days and Earth Day in about a month: Power to the People (borrowed from Laura).

He ends with this:

Finally, and most important — we can't predict the future, but we can know the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the third world. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it.

What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken this phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now — it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and antihuman doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world.

And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now.

In the UK, they get it

Not surprising that in the UK, they are really getting it. London's Science Museum is changing their current exhibit originally called "Climate Change Gallery" on "Climate Science Gallery". Because Climate Change consensus is not just "rocket science" anymore.

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.


Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Pass for cows and pigs (etc)

Despite the ever-popular-among-the-climate-change crowd theory that less meat equals less heat, a group of scientists in a recent meet says that eating less meat or cutting down on dairy products will have very little impact on global warming.

Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented here today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” launched late last year.


Friday, March 12, 2010

What Americans feel

about the threat of global warming may not matter to us in this side of the world. Or does it? If many of you believe in Al and his "scientists", then maybe Gallup's poll on Americans' attitudes toward global warming and the environment ring hollow.

But if, as is quite evident in this election campaign period where many Filipinos tend to believe in surveys (to the extent that they will vote for a candidate for the only reason that he is leading in the polls), shouldn't we also wonder why Americans' convictions toward the environment and global warming's effects have waned?

Won't be a small problem

One of the possible things we have to deal with, if our DOH pushes for more freebies.

This condom ploy is about two things: money and license. For the condom company, greed tramples any real concern for children. Lamprecht AG, the Swiss condom manufacturer, boasts of its intent to market the extra small condom in the United Kingdom next: “the UK is certainly a very attractive market since there is a very high rate of underage conception.” (Sounds like Planned Parenthood, here in the U.S., which makes huge amounts of money dispensing contraceptives and providing abortions.) There’s money to be made. Like any company trying to grow a market, Lamprecht AG ultimately must “grow” the need. They make money off the extra small condom only if more children have more sex. Good for kids? No way. Good for Lamprecht? Absolutely.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Remember the 16th

From Queer Conservative:

"All scientists are skeptics."

So says Prof. Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-chairman of the InterAcademy Council, and tasked to head an "independent" and external group to review procedures, practices, and management of the IPCC. We have our fingers crossed.

The review it seems will not correct any mistakes to previous IPCC reports, but hopes to avoid the mistakes, if any, in the process of making a report. The IPCC's fifth report is being prepared.

While we hope that Dijkgraaf and his team do a good job, we have to remember that in recent years, many (scientists and well, many others) have subscribed to the notion that climate science is a done deal, a consensus. What is there to be "skeptic" about?

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

The end is not near, then again, who really knows

"I can definitely tell you that the world is not coming to an end."

Not my words, but Bob Holdsworth's, an expert in tectonics at Durham University. It's good to know that recent quakes can be explained scientifically (not included is global warming science), and that the number of earthquakes are also within annual averages of seismic intensity. Read here for more.

March 11

What changed?

What changed? In 1952, Planned Parenthood said that abortion "kills the life of a baby after it has begun." Read

Let the conspiracy theories begin

The conspiracy theorists are having a field day beginning today, what with the emperor put in position. Y'know, the more we harp on these things, the truer they become. There is always that tendency that we will get what we imagine things to be.

Talking of dreams, here may be some of them types of dreamers. If they think she will change her mind, well,
“If the Church teaches that contraceptives are immoral, nothing can change that. Not even the vote of the whole country can change that,” he said.
Groupthink at work? The narrative is the same -- if some groups say or do something that isn't according to your narrative, it is not okay: you are sexist, homophobe, human rights violator, etc. But if your side says or does something that the former groups don't like, not according to your narrative, they should not give a hoot about it.

Tell me which side of the issue is which.

Update: Reading Cassy after I posted, and you should also, there is some similarity ...
Frankly, Angie is acting in typical behavior for a liberal. Liberals love to talk about “risky” or “taboo” things, and then pat themselves on the back for being courageous. This is basically the exact same thing. She says she isn’t doing it for a publicity stunt? She’s doing it to “de-mystify” abortion? Please. She wants attention, pure and simple. Some women may indeed be scared to have abortions, but watching Angie Jackson talk about having one isn’t exactly going to lead scared women to a moment of pure enlightenment and relief. This is another typical feature of liberalism. Their narcissism leads them to think that everything they do inspires someone, or encourages someone, or is somehow meaningful or special. In real life, it isn’t. No one cares about Angie Jackson, and they wouldn’t even know she existed were it not for this controversy she created.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Why not warnings?

The issue concerning condom use in the Philippines has been elevated to the question of appropriateness of advertising condoms ever since the Philippine Department of Health gave out condoms for free on Valentine's Day this year. The Church has spearheaded the call for the ban when she said: "... condom advertisements should be banned from television, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, and public places, as they desensitize the youth's delicate conscience and weaken their moral fiber as future parents."

I see that it is the right of the Church to call for such action, so that those who say that it is wrong for the Church to propose such measures is taking away the Church's moral obligation and responsibility as well as not giving her the benefit of the right to free expression.

Nevertheless, I also tend to agree that banning these advertisements might also go against the constitutional right of free expression of the manufacturers and advertisers. To my mind, it is not GHB, Ecstacy, cocaine, guns, or assisted-suicide services that are being advertised (these will most likely be banned from public advertising).

I echo a friend's suggestion: Considering that the ban is unconstitutional and considering as well the Church's right and duty to care for her faithful, we may allow these advertisements, BUT, in the same vein that government mandates that advertisements and other marketing communication strategies, including packaging, must include warnings or contra-indications, advertisements for condoms and other contraceptives cannot be exempt from this rule.

We cannot deny that there are hazards to contraceptive use (as explained here and here and here) and, so let us put these warnings. Informed choice. I have seen many of these ads and packaging, but warnings are never included.

If ads for alcoholic beverages and liquor include, for example, "Drink moderately" ; if medicine ads include "If symptoms persist, consult a doctor"; if health supplements ads say "No approved therapeutic claim"; if toy packaging comes with "Choking Hazard" labels; if tobacco products have picture-based warnings; then why not put similar warnings in contraceptive products advertisements and packaging (there could be a choking hazard, in some cases, y'know)?

If the anti-smoking, anti-processed milk or anti-powder milk, anti-gun, anti-right -to-reply, anti-freedom-of-information-act, hell, even anti-Arroyo-in-government advocacies (lobbies?) are gaining headway into "regulatory" solutions, we might have another effective way of telling people the evils of contraception: the warnings on labels and advertisements.

Then again, there is an anti-life lobby that will fight this.

Dr. Phil digs deeper

Dr. Phil is found lying again. He has gotten used to doctoring his data, and now even makes up reason for his not giving information to those requesting. He is digging deeper his icy hole, and there will lots of ice still to come.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Dibs on the yellow Presidency and media

About a couple of months ago, this came out in A little more than a year from now, I believe that we can say something like this about the Presidency in the Philippines, if the yellow army wins. If it comes to this, I declare dibs.

Disclosure: Yellow is my favorite color and it pains me to not use my yellow stuff more often these next few months.

Update: Well, what do you know? Read Jojo Robles's piece at Manila Standard. Here's one who sees the possibility of promises-meant-to-be-broken kind of guy, or worse.

More flak

Alan Reynolds writes another commentary on one point Al raised in his recent op-ed at NYT. Read.

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore wrote, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

See what you've done

Fear mongers, see what you've done.

Now come the hurricanes

Nature Geoscience came out with findings that differ from the 2007 IPCC Report (and differ then with Al's) on the link between hurricanes and anthropogenic global warming. Slowly but surely.

Here's a summary from Nature:
Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

Full report needs subscription though. But read here and here; all the same, the UN IPCC is fast losing more credibility.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading".
Of course they've said an independent review will take place. Ya sure.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Al shows up

In print, that is: NYT op-ed.

Still, he won't show up in debate. Don't take his word for it though. Better to read the antidote by Jules -- in short, Al does not say anything which he has not already said before.

Photo from Jules.

Ok, it’s settled, the science isn’t settled. Thanks, Al, for sort of acknowledging that. I notice he overlooked the fact that some diehard warmalists have wavered in the last few years, never mind that that IPCC twelve-pack was a few beers short of full consensus. Come on already with the fact that the warming’s stopped. Kind of makes me wonder if they aren’t lying about the ice caps melting, too. Anyway, Al, what did you expect, everything to stay the same forever? When did that ever happen on this planet?