Arctic scientist under investigation

[kimmielittle]

Did you actually read the paper you cited?

Yes, I did…I think in later 2010

The PDF is here princeton.edu/~mauzeral/papers/BC_adjoint_Himalayas_submitted_ACPD.pdf

The summary which I used of the PDF is here.

co2science.org/articles/V14/N20/C3.php Which failed to link ]

There is NOTHING that refutes my statement…About India needing to clean up its regional problems of Black Carbon to save the Himalayas;

My arguments have been the same throughout this discussion. I am sorry you are having problem with them. Which statements in particular are you referring to?

Hmmm let’s start off with the BIG Oil funding one. I notice you still haven’t addressed my question in my response to you ].

Then we can move on to the Vatican endorsing the Pontifical paper…

 

[bellasbane]

And, what have I posted that led you to that conclusion?

This:

bellasbane;8198122:

I did notice the reference. I read the introduction, the conclusion and skimmed the rest - looking for the context of your quote. Didn’t find it. However, the paper is fairly technical. It is this not something most people would consider “light reading”.

Um…didn’t you just accuse kimmielittle of “sloppy scholarship?” If all you are doing is “light reading” while she reads the technical stuff, then who is guilty of sloppy scholarship?

Ironic…

Apparently, Kimmie didn’t read the technical stuff. She didn’t read the original paper at all - she cited a secondary source which she failed to reference. I characterized the paper as “hardly light reading”, because (unlike Kimmie) I actually read some of it. The only bit of the actual paper Kimmie seems to have read was the part I quoted in a previous post.

I don’t want to keep harping on Kimmie, so lets just leave it at that.

 

[bellasbane]

Yes, I did…I think in later 2010

The PDF is here princeton.edu/~mauzeral/papers/BC_adjoint_Himalayas_submitted_ACPD.pdf

The summary which I used of the PDF is here.

co2science.org/articles/V14/N20/C3.php Which failed to link ]

There is NOTHING that refutes my statement…About India needing to clean up its regional problems of Black Carbon to save the Himalayas;

Hmmm let’s start off with the BIG Oil funding one. I notice you still haven’t addressed my question in my response to you ].

Then we can move on to the Vatican endorsing the Pontifical paper…

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Wednesday 1 July 2009

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published ‘misleading and inaccurate information’ about climate change

The world’s largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published “misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.”

guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

 

[bellasbane]

As you so well cite, Ballasbane, ‘scientists’ and ‘data’ are sought and bought by ‘the bad boys’ to mislead the public and try to justify their ‘business interests’. I only tried to make some technical corrections, which in fact supported what you posted. I ‘corrected’ before reading , being in a rush. Sorry! You’re Right On!

Thanks!

On that note I’m signing off for tonight. Bye!

 

[Pork_Roll]

I’m familiar with this story. The wife of this guy who worked with him would frequently leak information to nyt about how the agency formerly known as the MMS was corrupt or insensitive to the risks of drilling in the arctic. As an example, we had a cake made to celebrate something or other at work (I think it was an all hands meeting), and as a joke they put “drill baby drill” on the cake. We’ve been working for years to get wells drilled in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Someone later called their contact at the nyt to expose this offensive act of irresponsibility. He and his wife had a reputation for stirring up the pot and acting if on a crusade to expose our agency’s faults.

It turns out that this scientist who in reality is more of a contract manager is being investigated for unethical contracting practices. I think that he sole sourced a very large contract which goes against the regulations. Normally contracts go to lowest bidder or are small business set aside depending on the amount of money in the contract.

This investigation has nothing to do with “scientific” misconduct but unethical contracting.

 

[kimmielittle]

This:

Apparently, Kimmie didn’t read the technical stuff. She didn’t read the original paper at all - .

Apparently, you don’t read before making unwarranted accusations - It seems to be habitual IMO:shrug:

I don’t mind you harping - IF you back up what you say.

 

[kimmielittle]

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Wednesday 1 July 2009

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published ‘misleading and inaccurate information’ about climate change

The world’s largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published “misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.”

guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

Ohhhhhhhhhhh My My My…

Do you know anything about Lord Stern ? Or His Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change?

BUT IF YOU want to herald Him…Have at it.

He names $125,000 in this article…Yet I showed you in a past post Mr Soros in one year spent $1,060.000 On media hype NOT including $730,000 To “Politicize Science” what Soros org actually called it ]. On AGW for Mr James Hansen… soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

Guess who owns large shares of stocks in such as Peabody coal and …wait for it EXXON

gurufocus.com/news/90967/stocks-owned-by-buffett-and-soros-exxon-mobil-walmart-general-electric-the-procter–gamble-johnson–johnson-wells-fargo-bank-of-america-

Ohhhh ohhhh Guess what…Tobacco

seekingalpha.com/article/262063-5-favorite-george-soros-stocks

SourceWatch - Center for Media and Democracy - Open Society Institute - Sunlight Foundation - Tides Foundation - Fenton Communications Real Climate etc ] Are ALL Soros Funded

AND THESE ARE WHERE THE BIG OIL EXXON ESSO ] KOCH Brother Are Evil… Smears started

Now the question I asked was how does BIG Oil Money given to say Singer and Litzen - -FOR Research and travel etc — Differ from Big Oil Money to CRU - Jones - Hansen Indirectly ] etc For research and Travel?

British Petroleum - Shell Oil…Oman Oil… and even ESSO EXXONS old name ] Have funded CRU ** For Decades **

Listing them again

Acknowledgements

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge
the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as
EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy,
Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust,
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants,
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd.,
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation
and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

The second document ** Climategate emails ](potential-funding.doc)** that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three – the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust – are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth – Renewables North West – is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

I guess hypocrisy - to some - has no ends.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m familiar with this story. The wife of this guy who worked with him would frequently leak information to nyt about how the agency formerly known as the MMS was corrupt or insensitive to the risks of drilling in the arctic. As an example, we had a cake made to celebrate something or other at work (I think it was an all hands meeting), and as a joke they put “drill baby drill” on the cake. We’ve been working for years to get wells drilled in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Someone later called their contact at the nyt to expose this offensive act of irresponsibility. He and his wife had a reputation for stirring up the pot and acting if on a crusade to expose our agency’s faults.

It turns out that this scientist who in reality is more of a contract manager is being investigated for unethical contracting practices. I think that he sole sourced a very large contract which goes against the regulations. Normally contracts go to lowest bidder or are small business set aside depending on the amount of money in the contract.

This investigation has nothing to do with “scientific” misconduct but unethical contracting.

That’s what most of us here thought…but we will have to wait and see.

Thanks

 

[rlg94086]

This:

Apparently, Kimmie didn’t read the technical stuff. She didn’t read the original paper at all - she cited a secondary source which she failed to reference. I characterized the paper as “hardly light reading”, because (unlike Kimmie) I actually read some of it. The only bit of the actual paper Kimmie seems to have read was the part I quoted in a previous post.

I don’t want to keep harping on Kimmie, so lets just leave it at that.

Actually, you insulted me, so I won’t “just leave it at that.” I simply quoted your own words, which you have just provided again.

bellasbane:

I did notice the reference.** I read the introduction, the conclusion and skimmed the rest** - looking for the context of your quote. Didn’t find it. However, the paper is fairly technical. It is this not something most people would consider “light reading”.

You read “some of it” and then drew a conclusion that Kimmie hadn’t read it. That is poor scholarship on your part. Overall, in this thread, Kimmie has done a much better job of presenting her argument and supporting it with research. Considering the age and education difference, it’s impressive on her part.

 

[kimmielittle]

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Wednesday 1 July 2009

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published ‘misleading and inaccurate information’ about climate change

Let’s dissect this a bit…“hundreds of thousands” BUT reported was 1 hundred and 25 thousand…a bit dishonest??? Surely, misleading?

The world’s largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

“fund lobby groups”…There is a HUGE difference, in my mind, between funding “lobby Groups” and funding Scientists…

I believe…the promise EXXON made was not to fund Scientists…but here we see this article has “twisted” what was promised into a smear attempt…

But I guess we can trust Lord Stern’s camp …who BTW doesn’t even know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere …he quoted twice] 430ppm in his book…when it’s 393
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ as of today
.

 

[He_Man]

As for whether teen pregnancy itself is a “problem” is also debatable. After all, why would God give young people the capacity to procreate if he didn’t intend that they should?

This is some of the most insane logic you could use to argue a point. The “if God allows it, it must be good” argument - really?

You just defended the holocaust, rape, bestiality, necrophilia, and movies like Flubber, all in one fail swoop.

 

[estesbob]

This is some of the most insane logic you could use to argue a point. The “if God allows it, it must be good” argument - really?

You just defended the holocaust, rape, bestiality, necrophilia, and movies like Flubber, all in one fail swoop.

When the environment is one’s god all sorts of strange i conclusions are arrived at

 

[kimmielittle]

This is some of the most insane logic you could use to argue a point. The “if God allows it, it must be good” argument - really?

You just defended the holocaust, rape, bestiality, necrophilia, and movies like Flubber, all in one fail swoop.

AND…wait for it…ALL of what AGW is supposed to do

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We saw how the 10 and 20 year forcasts turned out.

Scientists are warning that some of **the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years **because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) **July 26, 1999 **

One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ’ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the** North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years**. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine** Dec 1, 1997 **

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

**The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade **if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News **Oct. 15, 1990 **

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle…Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith **1991 **

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News **December 5th 1989 **

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants – at a cost of $110 billion – to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press **May 15, 1989 **

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press** June 30, 1989**

Somebody tracked back that Himalayan glacier thing … turned out to originate from a couple of graduate students having a bar-room conversation.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We saw how the 10 and 20 year forcasts turned out.

Scientists are warning that some of **the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years **because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) **July 26, 1999 **

One of the world’s leading climate experts … [shortened for space ]…10 years

. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine** Dec 1, 1997 **

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, [shortened for space] By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

**The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade **if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News **Oct. 15, 1990 **

**By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle…Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, … [shortened for space] …At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith **1991 **

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News **December 5th 1989 **

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: … [shortened for space] …Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press **May 15, 1989 **

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press** June 30, 1989****

Sam,

Please add this one to your brilliant collection:

Gotta read this.

So, the Environmentalists were unanimous in their belief … religion, anyone? … that carbon dioxide would put NYC underwater by 2000 and raise temperatures by 7 degrees.

By the year 2000 …

                      ... how real has this been????

This article is an absolute must read.

Global warming definitely going to cause total world chaos in 30 years … without question.

articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-02/news/27068918_1_nixon-presidential-library-global-warming-carbon-dioxide

Excerpt:

Declassified documents show Nixon warned of global warning 30 years ago
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, July 02, 2010
YORBA LINDA, Calif. - Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

**There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.

Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."**

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 - when Nixon began his presidency - to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan advised Nixon to monitor carbon dioxide levels in 1969 memo. (Duprey/News)

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

“Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement,” he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan’s memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

When the environment is one’s god all sorts of strange i conclusions are arrived at

No One says the environment is anyone’s god; The Problem is when Billions in Profits, Untaxed, and Greed are a few’s God, then blaming all the last Decade on the Current president, Bob. Also, radical accusations Don’t belong on this Catholic Website. Have you forgotten the Thread: Global Warming Denial. Have any evidence proving the world scientific community wrong about Global Warming? Strange conclusions result if Anyone tries to blame the ideal USA Credit History destruction on Democrats, and not the Radical attitude Tea Party, trying to kill people programs instead of having the Richest, most profitable 2% Pay Fair % Taxes, and Stop getting Federal Subsidies. That Tea Party radical economic clique threatened Defaulting the USA, Historically, And they were blamed by S & P for not reconciling Economics and Budgeting In Congress, which has the Constitutional Obligation to Appropriate and reconcile Debt payments.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Sam,

Please add this one to your brilliant collection:

Gotta read this.

So, the Environmentalists were unanimous in their belief … religion, anyone? … that carbon dioxide would put NYC underwater by 2000 and raise temperatures by 7 degrees.

By the year 2000 …

                      ... how real has this been????

This article is an absolute must read.

No sane Scientist Ever made such bizarre allegations. Let’s not waste time with Any Bizarre 3rd hand allegations With A Purpose to deny the Proven Early Global Warming. ABC News On August 15 was that Heat records were broken in Every State this Summer already.
Global warming definitely going to cause total world chaos in 30 years … without question.

articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-02/news/27068918_1_nixon-presidential-library-global-warming-carbon-dioxide

Excerpt:

Declassified documents show Nixon warned of global warning 30 years ago
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, July 02, 2010
YORBA LINDA, Calif. - Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.

Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 - when Nixon began his presidency - to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan advised Nixon to monitor carbon dioxide levels in 1969 memo. (Duprey/News)

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

“Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement,” he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan’s memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.

                                                                                                                Environmentalists  were Not  remotelly  "Unanimous"  in  any  such bizarre  allegations,  nor  were  any  responsible  Scientists.                                                                            Every   State  this   Summer  already has  broken  Heat  records:   ABC  News   August  15.     Alaska  to  Florida;  Severe  Droughts  and  Record  Tornadoes  also:    Signs  of Early  Global  Warming.   Let's  stop  the   false Spin  here.

 

[kimmielittle]

Every State this Summer already has broken Heat records: ABC News August 15. Alaska to Florida; Severe Droughts and Record Tornadoes also: Signs of Early Global Warming. Let’s stop the false Spin here.

It would help if you learned how to link your references…Please do so.

Let’s stop the false Spin here.

ABSOLUTELY…Try referencing your claims, please.

Every State this Summer already has broken Heat records:

It is because we are experiencing ENSO cycles.

Severe Droughts

Like in Texas?

If This is what you are referencing, maybe a bit of history?
Look up the drought of 1930;s - 1950’s…1990’s…etc.

kcautv.com/story/15264572/drought-recalls-long-punishing-dry-spell-of-1950s

Then look up ENSO records

cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/enso.different.html

library.thinkquest.org/18424/Weather.html

When we actually start to study the environment…We find, to EVERYTHING there ia a cycle.

When we realize that…we can stop with pseudo-science unproven claims…

YES, The unproven hypothesis of AGW is a pseudo-science soft science ] Just as religion. It fails Mr Poppers falsifiability test of science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[estesbob]

Strange conclusions result if Anyone tries to blame the ideal USA Credit History destruction on Democrats, and not the Radical attitude Tea Party, trying to kill people programs instead of having the Richest, most profitable 2% Pay Fair % Taxes, and Stop getting Federal Subsidies. That Tea Party radical economic clique threatened Defaulting the USA, Historically, And they were blamed by S & P for not reconciling Economics and Budgeting In Congress, which has the Constitutional Obligation to Appropriate and reconcile Debt payments.

Proof once again that radical enviromentalism has little to do with “saving” the planet and much to do with using a bogus crisis to advance the far left wing political aagenda.

 

[kimmielittle]

No One says the environment is anyone’s god; The Problem is when Billions in Profits, Untaxed, and Greed are a few’s God, then blaming all the last Decade on the Current president, Bob. Also, radical accusations Don’t belong on this Catholic Website. Have you forgotten the Thread: Global Warming Denial. Have any evidence proving the world scientific community wrong about Global Warming? Strange conclusions result if Anyone tries to blame the ideal USA Credit History destruction on Democrats, and not the Radical attitude Tea Party, trying to kill people programs instead of having the Richest, most profitable 2% Pay Fair % Taxes, and Stop getting Federal Subsidies. That Tea Party radical economic clique threatened Defaulting the USA, Historically, And they were blamed by S & P for not reconciling Economics and Budgeting In Congress, which has the Constitutional Obligation to Appropriate and reconcile Debt payments.

Also, radical accusations Don’t belong on this Catholic Website.

Then why post this post?