Gore inconvenienced by court's truth.

It's just good practice to make a resonable effort, I see that.

  • 5 daughters + 1 wife + Mountain cabin = 5.9L 4x4 SUV, seats-7 with Air. I earned it.
  • 1/4 cord of wood bonfire on 4th of July, love it!
  • Once a week or so, I take a nice salt-soak in the tub and then rinse off with the shower. - - Not gonna give it up. (wifey says I need to bathe at least once a week)

If you buy into the cause, great, less power to ya'.

I'm not sold on it, its a natural process that has happened before and will happen again.
 
It's better to play safe, and stop polluting so much.

Here are a few things you can do, but I know many won't:
- Stop buying inefficient cars and buy cars according to your real needs. I'm sick of watching assholes/bitches ALONE in a hummer.
- Do not take bath tubs, use a shower. Uses less water, takes less time and you end up cleaner 'cause you're not immerse in your own stink.
- Turn off the lights that you're not currently using, same to all home electronics.

Just keep the government out of it.
 
gore-fire.jpg
 
DDT was banned in the seventies. Since then, millions have died; and all because of a certain Rachel Carson and her bogus book "Silent Spring". As it turns out, Rachel Carson may be the worst mass killer in history.

Now the debate is heating up again and it ain't pretty. The environuts will say and do anything to clean the egg off of their faces.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301275,00.html

Junk Science: DDT Backlash Continues
Thursday, October 11, 2007

By Steven Milloy

Ever since the World Health Organization reversed the environmentalist-promoted ban on DDT in 2006, eco-activists have scrambled to devise new ways to malign the life-saving insecticide in order to salvage their badly marred reputation.

Their latest effort involves touting a new study supposedly linking DDT exposure in adolescent girls with increased breast cancer risk in later life. The study was authored by researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine — an institution infamous for alarmist research on asbestos and 9-11 rescue workers — and was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal that seems to operate as a refuge for alarmist research.

The study first came to my attention via a letter by John Peterson Myers published in The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 25) entitled “Stop Pushing DDT.” Aficionados of health scares will recall that Myers was a co-author of the 1996 book “Our Stolen Future,” which fomented fears about chemicals in the environment causing every disease from cancer to attention deficit disorder.

A pro-DDT editorial by the Journal (Aug. 16) spotlighted new research countering the environmentalist claim that DDT is ineffective because mosquitoes can build resistance to the chemical’s toxic properties.

In taking exception to the Journal’s advocacy of DDT to combat the malaria — a disease that sickens 500 million per year, killing 1 million of them — Myers cited the Mount Sinai study and its claim that “women more exposed to DDT prior to puberty were five times more likely to develop breast cancer than those with lower exposure.” Myers pointed out that the authors concluded that “the public-health significance of DDT exposure is potentially large.”

I responded to Myers with a letter published in the Journal (Aug. 31) likening the study to statistical malpractice.

The study was small (including only 133 women with breast cancer), completely omitted data on key risk factors for breast cancer (such as genetics and family history) and only partially considered other potential risk factors (such as pregnancy and breast-feeding history). All of which amply explains the study’s internal contradictions and statistical flakiness.

The vast majority of the statistical correlations reported in the study were either zero or negative — meaning no relationship between DDT and breast cancer. Accepting the negative ones at face value, as Myers did the positive, would support the equally unlikely implication that DDT might actually prevent breast cancer. Moreover, the positive correlations were highly suspect.

The one cited by Myers — the five-fold increase in breast cancer risk — sports a wide margin of error, four times the size of the claimed correlation.

The Mount Sinai researchers responded with their own letter in the Journal (Sept. 22). Acknowledging that their study was small, their primary line of defense was that it was published in a reputable journal and was peer-reviewed by experts in the subject area, hardly a defense on the study’s merits, particularly given the particular journal in question.

While they acknowledged failing to consider genetic risk and family history of breast cancer in the study, they tried to excuse this lapse by glibly dismissing the two universally recognized breast cancer risk factors as being “unlikely to change the result.”

The final letter in this series (from Randall Dodd of Mill Creek, Wash., on Sept. 29) observed that the largest study on this subject found no link between DDT and breast cancer and that skepticism should be on “full alert status” whenever a small study contradicts all previous science done previously.

The Mount Sinai study reared its ugly head again this week in an Oct. 9 article by Rick Weiss on the front page of The Washington Post’s health section.

“A new study has found a significant link between women’s exposure to DDT as young girls and the development of breast cancer in later life,” Weiss begins. From there, he largely regurgitates the researchers’ results and views in uncritical fashion, including the denigration of the numerous previously published studies that found no link between DDT and breast cancer.

Although Weiss acknowledged to me that he had seen the exchange of letters in The Wall Street Journal, he inexplicably chose not to report that the study results had been so challenged.

Weiss closes his article with comments from Cornell University’s Suzanne Snedeker, a nutritionist by training who said that she had serious concerns about a DDT comeback in developing countries and would rather see funding for other approaches to malaria control.

Assuming purely for the sake of argument that DDT does increase the risk of breast cancer, do Snedeker’s concerns even make any sense?

Zimbabwe, for example, has about 2,000 cases of breast cancer per year, affecting about 0.016 percent of the population. In contrast, about 1.5 million cases of malaria occur there annually, affecting more than 12 percent of the population.

Avoiding the use of DDT to control malaria in Zimbabwe and other similarly afflicted areas because of concerns of breast cancer is clearly absurd — only made more so by the speciousness of the claim that DDT increases breast cancer risk.

As Randall Dodd concluded in his Wall Street Journal letter, “… in the context of the millions of people, principally children, who die from malaria every year, even if one suspends disbelief and grants the [Mount Sinai researchers] their findings, an elevated potential risk of the maladies they mention is outweighed exponentially by the certainty of millions of deaths, most of them avoidable, from malaria.”

Mr. Dodd’s point is so obvious and true that it ought to raise questions about the ulterior motives of those who dispute it.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

If we are still debating DDT nearly forty years later based on new and compelling evidence of its efficacy and safety, how can we state unequivocally that the debate over global warming is over?
 
I don't know about DDT but my money's on mosquitoes.

All that energy used in scratching & waving away & slapping. Energy use creates heat.
 
When it was announced that the film was being scruitinized by the British courts, this was the reaction of the CNN meterologist Rob Marciano.

Windows Media Player: http://www.bmivault.org/multimedia/video/2007/20071004-CNN-AM-Marciano.wmv

MP3: http://www.bmivault.org/multimedia/audio/2007/20071004-CNN-AM-Marciano.mp3

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071004161833.aspx

CNN Meteorologist: 'Definitely Some Inaccuracies' in Gore Film
Marciano applauds chance that 'Inconvenient Truth' might be banned in British schools.

By Paul Detrick
Business & Media Institute
10/4/2007 4:21:15 PM

Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands on CNN’s “American Morning” and exclaimed, “Finally,” in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” from UK schools because, according to the broadcast “it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies.”

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano added during the October 4 broadcast. “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Marciano went on to explain that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”

The case stems from a father’s claims that the film is brainwashing propaganda, who told The Telegraph, “I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom.”

Managing Editor of the Business and Media Institute Amy Menefee previously pointed out that Journalists have been promoting a link between hurricanes and global warming for more than a decade.

In 1992, Dan Rather covered an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History that predicted global warming chaos that proclaimed that, “…models predict warmer tropical oceans. More heat from the oceans adds energy that creates powerful winds. This could lead to stronger storms and hurricanes.”

In 2004, the “NBC Nightly News” had The Weather Channel’s Jim Cantore on to talk about Hurricane Isabel, who pondered, “Is it global warming? Maybe so.”

The Business & Media Institute has extensively critiqued the media’s coverage of global warming in Fire & Ice, which covers a hundred years of coverage of global warming. While journalists have warned of climate change for more than 100 years, the warnings switched from global cooling to warming to cooling and warming again.
 
http://www.businessandmedia.org/gbu/2007/gbu20071017.asp

The Good, the Bad & the Ugly column for 10/17/07

Dr. William Gray Speaks Out on Global Warming
October 17, 2007

The Good
The sky isn’t falling and Dr. William M. "Bill" Gray, a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes, and emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University wants everyone to know.

“I have been appalled the last 20 years of what I’ve heard and so on,” Gray said on the October 16 Dennis Prager Radio Show. “I think maybe humans can slightly make the globe a little bit warmer, but nothing like what they’ve been saying – what the global models say and what has been portrayed in the media.”

Gray told listeners there has been some global warming over the last 100 years, particularly the last 30 years, but it was natural due to the ocean circulation changes. He also said the Arctic polar ice caps were melting because of these changes in ocean circulation, not because of higher carbon in the atmosphere. He noted the Antarctic sea ice had been actually growing in recent years.

“I think the topic has been grossly exaggerated by those who – you know – one of the ways of getting research funds is to – you know – scare people,” Gray said. “Tell them that things are quite bad and the average citizen who can’t judge the matter will not mind the federal government putting large amounts of research money and so on into this topic.”

Gray said he felt he had an obligation to speak out on the matter because he believed all his colleagues in meteorology are held hostage by global warming alarmists, but since he is retired, he is immune to their attacks.

“It is not in their benefit to take on city hall sort of speak on this topic,” Gray said.

Gray also said he wasn’t speaking out because he was a “shill for big oil.”

“There’s sort of a mild McCarthyism going on in this field,” Gray said. “Yes, I have never received any fossil fuel money from anybody. That isn’t true. Some of us – we care about the truth in the matter. At my age, I just turned 78 … at my age, I’m going to tell the truth as best I can.”

Gray also told listeners this issue isn’t the “planetary emergency” that Al Gore has proclaimed it to be.

“I think we are not in – the world is not in a climate crisis as Vice President Gore would say,” Gray added. “We have many other important problems in this world we have to work on. And this is a red herring item that we can’t do anything about anyways. If we vastly cut down on our fossil fuels it would be a drop in the bucket in terms of global temperature change. The Third World – India, China and so on – are going to keep burning these fossil fuels.”
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303525,00.html

Junk Science: Hey Al Gore, We Want a Refund!
Friday, October 19, 2007

By Steven Milloy

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" must be warned of the film’s factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore’s "truth" if these errors and their progeny were excised?

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence — images of the Gore farm, Earth from space, Gore giving his slideshow and the 2000 election controversy. Gore then links Hurricane Katrina with global warming. But the judge ruled that was erroneous, so the Katrina scenes would wind up on the cutting-room floor.

Another 12 minutes of filler go by — images of Gore in his limo, more Earth photos, a Mark Twain quote, and Gore memories — until about the 16:30 minute mark, when, according to the judge, Al Gore erroneously links receding glaciers — specifically Mt. Kilimanjaro — with global warming.

The Mt. Kilimanjaro error commences an almost 10-minute stretch of problematic footage, the bulk of which contains Gore’s presentation of the crucial issue in the global warming controversy — whether increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide drive global temperatures higher. As the judge ruled that the Antarctic ice core data presented in the film "do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts," this inconvenient untruth also needs to go. [Note to readers: A video debate between Al Gore and climatologists on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking HERE.]

After still more filler footage about Winston Churchill, the 2000 election, and rising insurance claims from natural disasters, Gore spends about 35 seconds on how the drying of Lake Chad is due to global warming. The judge ruled that this claim wasn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

More filler leads to a 30-second clip about how global warming is causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim greater distances to find sea ice on which to rest. The judge ruled however, that the polar bears in question had actually drowned because of a particularly violent storm.

On the heels of that error, Gore launches into a 3-minute "explanation" of how global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and send Europe into an ice age. The judge ruled that this was an impossibility.

Two minutes of ominous footage — casting Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a creepy light and expressing Gore’s frustration with getting his alarmist message out — precede a more-than-9-minute stretch that would need to be cut.

In this lengthy footage, Gore again tries to link global warming with discrete events including coral reef bleaching, the melting of Greenland, catastrophic sea level rise, Antarctic melting and more. But like Hurricane Katrina, these events also shouldn’t be linked with global warming.

Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been "cured," implying that we can cure "global warming." While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no "cure" for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that "more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand," he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.

"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.

Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
 
So what ever happened to those devastating hurricanes which would make Katrina look like an April shower?

01125110.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg


http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

2007 Yearly Tropical Cyclone Activity to Date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Ryan N. Maue, Florida State University
Cross Post at Climate Audit (h/t) Steve McIntyre

Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy). For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity than 2007. For the North Atlantic basin, Tropical Storm Noel is currently too weak to impact any of these results. However, one should always be prepared for late-season developments since hurricane season ends on November 30.
 
Back
Top