By bucking the supposed consensus, Dr. Susan Crockford has face immense hurdles with her work on polar bears. Dr. Crockford joins me to tell the truth on polar bear populations and the climate scare. Dr. Crockford is a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience. Crockford’s work includes published work on the Holocene history […]Polar Bears and Climate Scares – the Real Truth Behind the Issue — Iowa Climate Science Education
By bucking the supposed consensus, Dr. Susan Crockford has face immense hurdles with her work on polar bears. Dr. Crockford joins me to tell the truth on polar bear populations and the climate scare.
Dr. Crockford is a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience. Crockford’s work includes published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is a former adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia and works full time for a private consulting company.
Dr. Crockford has published work that suggests the claims of climate change is hurting the polar bears is unsupported by the actual data, she has been ostracized and banished from her university for bucking the consensus.
For more information, visit her website at https://polarbearscience.com/
Here is the Podcast:
This is her book mentioned during the Podcast:
Available on Amazon.
via Watts Up With That?
June 19, 2020 at 04:35PM
The New York Times is asserting a doozy of a fake climate claim today, scaring readers into believing they will no longer be able to get home mortgages because of climate change. 455 weitere WörterNo, NY Times, Climate Change Will Not End the 30-Year Mortgage — Climate Realism
The New York Times is asserting a doozy of a fake climate claim today, scaring readers into believing they will no longer be able to get home mortgages because of climate change. The assertion is preposterous. Let’s break it down:
This morning, the Times published an article titled, “Rising Seas Threaten an American Institution: The 30-Year Mortgage.” The subtitle reads, “Climate change is starting to transform the classic home loan, a fixture of the American experience and financial system that dates back generations.”
The reasoning, according to the Times, is “More banks are getting buyers in coastal areas to make bigger down payments — often as much as 40 percent of the purchase price, up from the traditional 20 percent — a sign that lenders have awakened to climate dangers and want to put less of their own money at risk.”
So, allegedly, for the less-than-one-percent of the American population that is rich enough and privileged enough to build or buy an oceanfront house, banks are asking for a larger down payment due to obvious coastal flooding risks. According to the Times, we are supposed to cry for the One-Percenters who are asked to put more money down on their oceanfront home mortgages. Well, boo hoo hoo, that is simply banks executing responsible lending practices for people living on the water, with or without climate change.
Worse, however, is the way the Times completely misrepresents the situation in the title and subtitle of its article. Rising seas are not “threatening an American institution: the 30-year mortgage.” The 30-year mortgage will remain the standard for the 99.9 percent of the population that is not seeking to get loans for an oceanfront home.
The Times has deliberately published an article with a misleading, overly alarmist title and subtitle to induce people who scan the titles of news articles to fear without reason that climate change will keep them from getting a home mortgage. Climate change or no climate change, only a tiny, extremely wealthy percentage of the population may be asked to put more money upfront for oceanfront homes. 99.9 percent of the population have nothing to worry about at all regarding the future of 30-year mortgages.
This is what happens when “news” organizations determine that it is their moral responsibility to lie and mislead people to promote a certain point of view regarding a dubious climate crisis. Truth is twisted, misrepresented, or completely thrown out the window.
The truth is, there is no threat to the “fixture of the American experience and financial system that dates back generations.” 30-year home mortgages aren’t going anywhere. And make sure that climate alarmists like the New York Times are held accountable for lying and promoting such preposterous scares.
The post No, NY Times, Climate Change Will Not End the 30-Year Mortgage appeared first on Climate Realism.
The New York Times published a sensationalist June 18 article claiming a new study shows climate change is causing premature, underweight, and stillborn babies. Google News posted the… 1.189 weitere WörterNY Times Debunked: Climate Change NOT Tied to Pregnancy Risks — Climate Realism
The New York Times published a sensationalist June 18 article claiming a new study shows climate change is causing premature, underweight, and stillborn babies. Google News posted the Times article, titled “Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most,” as Google’s top story June 18 under the search term “climate change.” A objective review of the study shows the New York Times is telling an alarmist lie, and there has likely been either no climate-change impact or a beneficial climate-change impact regarding pregnancy and childbirth.
Before addressing the objective data, it is worth considering who wrote the “study” cited by the Times. The lead author of the study is Bruce Bekkar, who serves on the Board of Directors for the climate activist group Climate Action Campaign. The Climate Action Campaign is a sock puppet of the renewable power industry, listing Sullivan Solar Power and Calpine Energy Solutions as its two “Juggernaut Members.” The name of the first Juggernaut Member, “Sullivan Solar Power,” speaks for itself. Regarding the second Juggernaut Member, Calpine’s LinkedIn profile reads, “Renewables and environment, Incorporating Sensible Sustainability Into Your Organization’s Energy Portfolio.”
The Climate Action Campaign’s funding is not the only part of the organization that lacks objectivity regarding climate issues. The Climate Action Campaign’s mission statement reads, “Climate Action Campaign has a simple mission: STOP THE CLIMATE CRISIS.”
It is, of course, possible that a board member of a climate activist group that receives its primary funding from the solar and renewable power industry can produce an accurate, objective study. However, given the financial self-interest of Bekkar’s primary donors and Bekkar’s unashamed activism on the climate change topic, one would imagine an objective news outlet would give the claims made in Bekkar’s study a little extra scrutiny. The Times, however, gave the study’s methodology and claims no critical scrutiny at all.
Let’s start with the methodology. Bekkar did not conduct any primary medical or scientific research. Bekkar simply looked at a group of other studies, which he and his team personally selected, and then claimed to tease out some data regarding climate change and pregnancy. Given Bekkar’s financial and ideological self-interest in finding data that would suggest climate change harm, Bekkar’s methodology is quite suspect. For example, did Bekkar select some studies to review, and leave out others, based on how alarmist they were? We don’t know, but it certainly seems possible. After all, it is quite possible that such an agenda-driven author would only be looking for frightening climate data, manipulate the climate data that exists in the worst possible light, and ignore or bury countervailing data that exculpates or provides proper context to Bekkar’s predetermined agenda.
Now let’s look at Bekkar’s asserted findings.
Bekkar’s study makes two primary climate assertions. Bekkar’s first assertion is that the risk of premature birth rises by 11.6% for every 5.6 degrees Celsius increase in temperature. Any medical scientist will tell you that an 11% variance is generally indistinguishable from random background noise. Moreover, according to NASA, the Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 1 degree Celsius during the past 140 years, not 5.6 degrees Celsius. Assuming for the sake of argument that NASA’s temperature numbers are inflated, we still have had only about one-sixth of the warming that would cause the minimal 11% increase in premature births. Prorating that out, Bekkar would be claiming that he has teased out from his self-selected studies a 2% increase in premature births due to climate change. Given such a tiny number, given Bekkar’s self-selection of the studies that he teased the number from, and given Bekkar’s financial and ideological self-interest in finding the highest number possible under whatever methodology he could utilize, Bekkar’s own study shows literally or essentially no global warming impact on premature births.
Bekkar’s second assertion is that his analysis shows every temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius during the summer months corresponds with a 6% increase in the likelihood of stillbirth. For the same reasons explained in the prior paragraph, Bekkar’s claim to tease out a 6% increase is indistinguishable from background noise, even if we assume Bekkar has objectively collected, analyzed, and presented his numbers.
Just as importantly, Bekkar completely ignores the flip-side of the coin. If exceptionally hot temperatures during the summer cause an arguable increase in stillbirths, do exceptionally cold temperatures during the winter cause a similar – or perhaps even greater – increase in stillbirths? If so, then climate change has had no net impact – or perhaps a beneficial impact – on the number of stillbirths. After all, climate alarmists acknowledge that climate change has caused – and will continue to cause – a reduction in extreme-cold events (see pgs 135-136 of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report). Bekkar doesn’t address this very important question of winter cold and stillbirths. Given his financial and ideological self-interest in making alarmist climate claims, we are left to wonder whether Bekkar simply failed to analyze a seemingly vital question related to his stillbirth claims, or whether he did analyze the question and didn’t like – and therefore did not publish – the less-than-alarming results.
Given that Bekkar ignored the question, we can look to other sources for guidance. The prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal Lancet reports that cold temperatures kill 20 times more people globally than warm or hot temperatures. One would imagine that stillbirths are included in, or similar to, that equation. If so, for every 1 stillbirth that Bekkar claims is caused by climate change and warming temperatures, another 20 stillbirths are being prevented by climate change and fewer cold temperature events.
Also, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports the same is true for Americans – more people die in the United States from cold temperatures than hot temperatures.
Now let’s get back to the Times’ coverage of Bekkar’s study. The Times quotes multiple climate activists, like a “senior climate justice and health scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists” and “a field organizer in Houston for Moms Clean Air Force,” fawning over the study’s findings. The Times does not quote, and apparently failed to contact, anybody who might examine the study from a more skeptical, or at least neutral, viewpoint. That seems quite amazing considering the red flags regarding the lead author’s financial and ideological self-interest.
Ultimately, a climate activist produced a very dubious “study” in which he claims to have teased out from self-selected data a very small increase in premature births and stillbirths. His methodology is suspect and he ignored very important questions and data that likely refute his assertion. Moreover, existing objective mortality data and peer-reviewed studies show cold temperatures are more deadly than heat. The New York Times chose to completely ignore all these red flags and title its article, “Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most.”
No wonder people increasingly distrust the establishment media.
The post NY Times Debunked: Climate Change NOT Tied to Pregnancy Risks appeared first on Climate Realism.
Among the top results this afternoon for a Google News search of “climate change” is an article claiming ancient coal-burning caused a mega-extinction event 250 million years ago. 528 weitere WörterNo, Coal Power Plants Did Not Cause Extinctions 250 Million Years Ago — Climate Realism
Among the top results this afternoon for a Google News search of “climate change” is an article claiming ancient coal-burning caused a mega-extinction event 250 million years ago. In reality, massive volcanic eruptions that continued for 2 million years caused the extinction, not prehistoric power plants of human or natural creation.
The “science” website Phys.org published an article today titled, “Coal-burning in Siberia led to climate change 250 million years ago.” The article references a study by researchers at Arizona State University examining geological features and residue in Siberia from 250 million years ago. The geological features and residue confirmed what scientists have long, known: that massive, persistent volcanic eruptions that lasted for 2 million years caused the extinction event long ago.
Even Phys.org acknowledges the causal role of the volcanic eruptions. “The massive eruptive event that formed the traps [the Siberian Traps, a region of volcanic rock in Russia] is one of the largest known volcanic events in the last 500 million years. The eruptions continued for roughly two million years and spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary” that marks the extinction event.
That seems quite straightforward. Volcanic eruptions of nearly unimaginable intensity and duration caused the punishing assaults on the earth and dramatic changes that led to a large extinction event. Heck, volcanic eruptions of nearly unimaginable intensity and duration should cause dramatic assaults on the earth and changes that lead to a large extinction event.
However, the researchers who wrote up their study noted that when the volcanoes incinerated so many plants, animals, etc., the volcanoes burned some coal that was laying around, also.
“Our study shows that Siberian Traps magmas intruded into and incorporated coal and organic material,” said one of the study’s authors, according to Phys.org. “That gives us direct evidence that the magmas also combusted large quantities of coal and organic matter during eruption.”
The author claimed dramatic similarities between the 2 million years of intense volcanic eruptions and current fossil fuel use. “Seeing these similarities gives us extra impetus to take action now, and also to further understand how the Earth responds to changes like these in the longer term,” says the author.
Phys.org piled on. “And the changes at the end-Permian extinction bear remarkable parallels to what is happening on Earth today, including burning hydrocarbons and coal,” claimed Phys.org.
No, 2 million years of intense volcanic eruptions is not the same – or even remotely similar – to human utilizing fossil fuels today. It’s not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same planet, unless we eradicate 250 million years of time and try to survive 2 million years of intense volcanic eruptions. The fact that coal was some of the material burned in the cataclysmic volcano events does not mean that coal caused the extinction event.
Headlines like “Coal-burning in Siberia led to climate change 250 million years ago” are absurdly misleading. Such ridiculous headlines and claims are also the reason – rather than fictitious money spent by evil people in a grand conspiracy theory – why so many Americans remain justifiably skeptical of the alarmists’ Climate Delusion.