At least your Mom wasn’t this bad…

In honor of Mother’s day, I present to you the 2012 finalists on our Mother of the Year awards…

 

Inline image 13Inline image 12Inline image 11Inline image 10Inline image 9Inline image 8Inline image 7Inline image 6Inline image 5Inline image 4Inline image 3Inline image 2Inline image 1
Advertisements

Rand Paul has a quick fix for TSA: Pull the plug

By BURGESS EVERETT | 5/3/12 6:32 PM EDT Updated: 5/5/12 11:33 AM EDT

Rand Paul has a reform plan for the Transportation Security Administration: Scrap the whole thing.

A personal message from Paul (R-Ky.) came atop emails this week from the Campaign for Liberty Vice President Matt Hawes, asking for readers to sign a petition in support of Paul’s “End the TSA” bill. A Paul spokeswoman said that legislation is being finalized next week.

Paul was stopped by the TSA before a flight from Nashville earlier this year,  causing him to miss a flight — and a big speech at the March for Life in Washington. Paul referred to the incident in his fundraising email.“Every inch of our person has become fair game for government thugs posing as ‘security’ as we travel around the country. Senator Rand Paul has a plan to do away with the TSA for good, but he needs our help,” reads the petition, which also asks signers to “chip in a contribution to help C4L mobilize liberty activists across America to turn the heat up on Congress and end the TSA’s abuse of our rights.”

“The American people shouldn’t be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I’ve vowed to lead the charge to fight back,” Paul wrote at the top of a C4L fundraising pitch, according to blogs that received the email. “Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pressure Congress to act now and restore our liberty. It’s time to END the TSA and get the government’s hands back to only stealing our wallets instead of groping toddlers and grandmothers.”

“In 2011 alone, the Transportation Security Administration’s 50,000 Transportation Security Officers screened more than 603 million passengers at 450 airports across the country and stopped more than 125,000 prohibited items at airport checkpoint, including over 1,300  firearms,” the TSA said in a statement provided to POLITICO. “Eliminating the agency charged with protecting the very system that continues to be a target for potential attack by our adversaries would directly undermine security. While TSA does not comment on pending legislation, it looks forward to working with Senator Paul on sensible proposals for enhancing security and improving the screening experience for passengers.”

Paul’s spokeswoman said in an email that in addition to the “End the TSA” legislation, Paul is working on “multiple” TSA bills, including one to privatize the service as well as a passenger bill of rights. Ending the TSA has been a presidential campaign plank of Rand Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who started the political organization C4L. And last week, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) called on TSA Administrator John Pistole to step down.

More at the original story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75896.html

 

Climate model predictions are wrong, so their hypothesis are wrong.

Climate Science Not Settled Nor Rock Solid: Quicksand Is Better Analogy

by DR. TIM BALL on APRIL 29, 2012

in GOVERNMENT,POLITICAL,POLITICS,THEORY

Danielle Smith, leader of Alberta’s Wildrose Party possibly contributed to her election defeat when she said about climate change,

“We have always said the science isn’t settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate.”

It’s an accurate and reasonable statement, but triggered inaccurate and unreasonable responses, which fall into some of the categories identified by Christopher Moncton. Here are four of them.

1. “The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.”

2. “Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy.”

3. “But it’s only if we include a strong warming effect from Man’s CO2 emissions that we can reproduce the observed warming of the past 60 years. We cannot think of any other reason for the warming.” That argument from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. We do not know why the warming has occurred. Arbitrarily to blame Man is impermissible.”

4. “We tell the computer models that there will be strong warming if we add CO2 to the air. The models show there will be a strong warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” This is the argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion.”

Andrew Weaver, one of Canada’s top climate modelers, recently said about climate science,

“It’s more than firm, it’s as solid as a rock,” “The scientific community has used the word unequivocal.”

“There are thousands of scientists working on this problem and if there was an Achilles heel to it, one person would find it. This is lowest common-denominator rhetoric.”

These are classic argumentum ad verecundiam (2) or consensus arguments, which I wrote about here. Thousands of scientists are working on the problem and they’ve found a multitude of Achilles heels. Here’s recent commentary on one of the most egregious, the omission practice of leaving out variables or data.

If Weaver is referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) people they have a vested interest in perpetuating the IPCC version of climate science, best illustrated by Joanne Nova’s telling cartoon.

But there’s a more telling scientific reason why IPCC science isn’t rock solid and quicksand is a better analogy. A basic definition of science is the ability to predict. IPCC began making predictions but quickly switched to projections based on different scenarios. Regardless of terminology the public understand they’re predictions, as they’re supposedly scientifically derived prognostications. Regardless of terminology they’re all produced by computer models and are all wrong.

There’s much literature, including peer reviewed articles, analyzing what’s wrong with the models and others identify failure of the models. Dr Clive Best’s projections compare actual temperature records with the 1990 predictions and show even the lowest is wrong. A second graph adds CO2 change and how it separates from temperature in 2000; the point at which global warming became climate change.

Two problems guarantee failure of the IPCC work. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on incorrect assumptions, which are built into the computer models. For example, a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase, when the opposite happens in every record. IPCC projections continue to follow the CO2 record after 2000 that indicate it’s integral to their calculations. It’s a classic argumentum ad petitionem principii, or circular argument (4). It also fits the common observation about computer models – garbage in, garbage out (GIGO). I prefer with IPCC models it means, garbage in, gospel out.

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

Climate predictions are consistently wrong, so the hypothesis is wrong and the computer models built on it are wrong and produce meaingless results. Failed predictions indicate climate science remains unsettled. Corollary of the settled, solid rock arguments are that we can eliminate IPCC, or is that a reductio ad absurdum argument?

 

Original article here: http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-science-not-settled-nor-rock-solid-quicksand-is-better-analogy/

Global Warming predictions on plants off by a factor of 8 – what else is wrong?

Scientific models are failing to accurately predict the impact of global warming on plants, says a new report.

Researchers found in long-term studies that some are flowering up to eight times faster than models anticipate.

The authors say that poor study design and a lack of investment in experiments partly account for the difference.

They suggest that spring flowering and leafing will continue to advance at the rate of 5 to 6 days per year for every degree celsius of warming.

The results were published in the journal Nature.

For more than 20 years, scientists have been carrying out experiments to mimic the impacts of rising temperatures on the first leafing and flowering of plant species around the world.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The bottom line is that the impacts might be bigger than we have believed until now”

This RutishauserOeschager centre for Climate Change Research

Researchers had assumed that plants would respond in essentially the same way to experimental warming with lamps and open top chambers as they would to changes in temperatures in the real world.

Very little has been done to test the assumption until this study lead by Dr Elizabeth Wolkovich, who is now at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

With her colleagues she studied the timing of the flowering and leafing of plants in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species.

According to Dr Wolkovich, the results were a surprise.

“What we found is that the experiments don’t line up with the long term data, and in fact they greatly underestimate how much plants change their leafing and flowering with warming,” she said.

“So for models based on experimental data, then we would expect that plants are leafing four times faster and flowering eight times faster in the long term historical record than what we’re using in some of the models.”

 

more at the original article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17924653

Wind Turbine’s cause of global warming?

Wind turbines have an unusual way of generating hot air. By drawing down warm air from the atmosphere above, they cause temperatures in their immediate surroundings to warm slightly.

Liming Zhou of the University at Albany, State University of New York and colleagues used land-surface temperature data gathered by NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites to examine the effect.

The satellites give temperature measurements with a spatial resolution of roughly 1 square kilometre, which the team matched up with data from the US Federal Aviation Administration on the exact location of 2358 wind turbines in west-central Texas.

They found that the immediate surroundings of wind turbines were on average 0.5 °C warmer than the rest of the region. The study spanned 2003 to 2011, during which time the region saw a boost in the number of wind turbines, from 111 to 2358.

Good mixer

The warming was particularly pronounced at night. Zhou says the warming was caused primarily by vertical mixing of the air, rather than as a direct result of friction as air passes over the turbines’ blades: the movement of the turbines is mixing the cooler ground-level air with warmer air higher up.

 

More at the source article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21759-wind-turbines-can-cause-localised-warming.html

Latest Global Warming data: Temperatures have Barely Risen in 20 years

World temperatures have remained almost stagnant in the last two decades,  new figures have revealed.

Temperatures across the globe rose by around a third of a degree last year from the average of 14 degrees Celsius recorded between 1961 and 1990.

In some years, temperatures rose by just 0.29 degrees C while in others they rose by .53 degrees.

Global warming: A retreating glacier in Alaska USA. But despite alarmist theories, temperatures have barely risen in the past 20 yearsGlobal warming: A retreating glacier in Alaska USA. But despite alarmist theories, temperatures have barely risen in the past 20 years

The findings come as consumers feel the full force of a raft of environment policies introduced by the coalition and the previous Labour government in the name of climate change.

By 2030, ‘green’ policy burdens could cost families an extra £267 a year and have already raised current energy bills by £78 annually.

The figures on global temperatures were  published by Environment Minister Gregory Barker in a parliamentary answer to Tory MP Anne Main.

Mrs Main said it raised questions about whether vulnerable people should be made to make the choice between heating and eating.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134769/Is-global-warming-just-hot-air-World-temperatures-risen-just-0-29C-decades.html#ixzz1tkZDmHL3

 

 

more at the source article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134769/Is-global-warming-just-hot-air-World-temperatures-risen-just-0-29C-decades.html

7th International Conference on Climate Change set to update “Climate Change Reconsidered” rebuttle

over 800 scientists will converge on Chicago May 23rd to host the 7th annual International Conference on Climate Change.

This year’s theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.” Our goal is to feature approximately 60 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.

Major developments on the science front since the last ICCC took place include publication of a new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) updating its 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered, and a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on climate change and extreme weather events.

The past year was marked by major retreats in the U.S. and other developing nations from government subsidies and investments in solar and wind power. The widely publicized bankruptcies of companies including Solar Trust of America and Solyndra, and slow economic growth and fiscal crises afflicting many European countries, have forced policymakers around the world to reconsider the costs and consequences of basing energy choices on fear of man-made global warming.

 

more here:  http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!