30 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. How ‘Inconvenient’ this is. What would the Goracle say about this claim…B@$Sh$t…I betcha…

  4. Four dead bears seen from 1400 ft up in an airplane parlayed into a 50 million dollar kingdom for him and his wife to reign over plus pensions.
    Grifter bureaucrat douchebags, probably shot the bears themselves.

  5. Maybe those poor bears died for the same reason so many enviro-scienctists are dying:
    Incest left them floundering.

  6. That they even have the balls to suggest that crap like that is even “science” to begin with is simply unbelievable.

  8. Think Tom Hanks with same intonation:
    “THERE’S NO ASSUMING IN SCIENCE”
    “it becomes more outrageous that government funds are being spent on this crackpot probe” Amen.

  10. Crap, more crap, and crapola. Nice. To be back pedaling now, and saying we never said that, or that things were taken out of context, when they could have said something years ago when algore’s movie came out.

  11. Unbelievable!
    A “scientist: flies over some bear carcasses at 1500 feet,and makes a guess that they’ve drowned! Then, he has his wife “peer review” his paper on his “research”!
    And it’s accepted as gospel,by the government of the U.S.A.!
    Has that Country gone completely f’ing crazy?
    The asshole,er gentleman,should be fired and never get his thieving hands on taxpayers money again!

  12. I can tell you that Alberta’s progressive Environment Minister, Rob “meathead” Renner, is a full and firm believer in the IPCC’s AGW science.
    He invites lying green groups like the Pembina Institute to sit at the table and drive public policy while ignoring regular Albertans.
    I know he knows it is bogus. I’ve asked him specifically to comment on some of the IPCC evidence he uses to push CO2 taxes. All I got back was blah-blah concensus. He’s hoping I, and others like me, just go away.
    This fraud is costing businesses and taxpayers billions a year, and the benefit to all of us is being forced into using poison light bulbs and to rely on inefficent, expensive “sustainable” technologies. Energy and food prices will continue to rise as we subsidize the fraudulent greenies.
    Please folks, let you politicians know you are unhappy with their embrace of this scam.
    Let the proggies in the media feel your wrath as well.
    And the propaganda pushers in the Education system could use a whack to smarten them up.
    It’s time to drop the gloves!

  13. “Eric Holder’s Justice Department has already declined to pursue any criminal prosecution in the probe(…)”
    All you need to know.

  14. Syncrodox @1:57:
    I prefer the term “sodomized”.
    cal2 @2:59
    Whoooooo should be imprisoned???
    dmorris @ 3:09
    By their own admission -“sloppy”
    They also “assumed” the bears were spread evenly over the area. Someone well versed in statistics, the science not NHL, would have a field day with that.

  15. Personally, I’d be inclined to cut Monnett a bit of slack for this one and be more inclined to point the finger at the ones who seized on this “study” (more of a casual observation with unsupported speculation) to blow it completely out of proportion.
    There is a lot of very anemic “science” out there. G*d knows the medical literature is full of it. But most physicians, certainly in academic/teaching institutions, i.e. most of the major tertiary care hospitals, have been trained to recognize it and take it for what it is(n’t) worth — “Thanks, very nice, get us a couple hundred more of these and we might start paying serious attention.”
    The fact that this isolated observation coupled with pure speculation gained the traction it did, is evidence of the complete wasteland that is AGW theory. The paper was touted so widely because it’s all they’ve got! Were there a shred of hard science to back AGW, this paper would never have seen the light of day.
    Monnett was not wrong to put it out there. Observations are part of the process. But every climate alarmist and enviroloon who made anything of it, and every pol who used it to justify public policy, proved their idiocy or mendacity by using it as “evidence” for pushing their pet cause.

  16. it just keeps getting better..no surprise where you end up when you follow the money…
    from: nofrakkingconsensus.com
    Pew, What’s That Smell?
    August 4, 2011
    According to its website, the Pew Environment Group is on a mission. Its purpose is:
    saving the natural environment and protecting the rich array of life it supports. Our aim is to strengthen environmental policies and practices…and mobilize public support for their implementation.
    In other words, it’s an environmental advocacy outfit. Its entire purpose is to draw more attention to environmental concerns. Of all the problems and issues out there (from inadequate inner-city schools, to horrible diseases desperate for research funding, to the wrongfully convicted), this organization thinks the environment is top-of-the-list.
    There’s nothing wrong with that. Per se. But what happens when a group with a political agenda becomes a persistent source of funding for a particular category of scientists? Say scientists whose specialty is the oceans and marine life. Say via a program that has been running for more than 20 years – long enough to have influenced an entire generation of research?
    Allow me to introduce you to the Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation. Researchers lucky enough to be named a Pew Fellow receive $150,000.
    These days, five new scientists each year become Pew Fellows – which adds up to $750,000. Back in the year 2000 10 scientists a year were being so honoured – representing an expenditure of $1.5 million per annum.
    That is one big bag of cash. Can you imagine the outrage if the tobacco industry was handing out $1 million to researchers in one corner of the scientific world every year like clockwork? Would anyone believe that such a constant stream of cash was having no influence on which scientific questions those working in that field were choosing to ask – or avoid?
    Even more to the point: Do we imagine that the work of such scientists would ever be taken seriously again? Surely, in many circles, their findings and their judgment would henceforth be considered suspect.
    Which brings me to Jane Lubchenco. In 2008 US President Barack Obama nominated her to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In early 2009 her nomination was duly confirmed by the US Senate. She therefore holds the title of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
    When her appointment was officially announced, the NOAA told us that “Dr. Lubchenco is the first woman and the first marine ecologist” to lead “the nation’s top science agency for climate, oceans, and the atmosphere.”
    We were reminded that the NOAA’s annual budget is four billion taxpayer dollars.
    We were advised that Lubchenco is part of “a distinguished group of scientific leaders in the Obama administration that will ensure that science plays its proper role in shaping policy.”
    In this official announcement, Lubchenco promised to use “the best science” as her guide. Moreover, someone else described her as “a top flight scientist.” We were told about her many awards and her many impressive titles.
    What the announcement neglected to mention is that, at the time she was nominated, Lubchenco was Vice Chair of the board of the aggressive, influential, and outrageously wealthy Environmental Defense Fund.
    Nor did it mention that in, 1992, she became a Pew Fellow – which means she accepted $150,000 from the activist entity I’ve described above.
    Nor, funnily enough, did the official announcement mention that Lubchenco is a former trustee of the World Resources Institute.
    At the moment, this third activist group’s board of directors includes Al Gore. Its climate and energy program is being directed by Jennifer Morgan, the former chief spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
    This means that an enormous government body is being led by a woman whose links to activist organizations are beyond dispute. The EDF. The Pew Environment Group. The World Resources Institute. None of these are a secret. None are marginal, shoe-string operations.
    Yet even when there are three good reasons to worry that an activist mindset may be clouding your judgment, people are still prepared to call you a top flight scientist.
    This suggests that, at its very highest levels, the scientific establishment is now rife with activists. But these people are not the same thing as genuine, bona fide scientists. Not at all.
    So long as the scientific community chooses to pretend otherwise it doesn’t deserve the public’s respect – or its trust.

  18. and at the risk of being labelled a pest…..
    one of the funnier..and accurate…pieces I’ve seen lately
    from:theonion.com
    PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.
    Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.
    “Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes,” said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “While we can’t see them, we’re fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth’s surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven.”
    “We originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself,” Kivens added. “But it turns out it’s far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit.”
    Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star’s core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.
    While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.
    “Apparently it’s gigantic simply because it’s closer to us than any other star,” Kivens said. “Which would also account for why we feel this particular star’s heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night.”
    “It’s interesting stuff,” he added.
    According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating “even when one has just been standing there and hasn’t been running around or anything.”
    An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.
    When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star’s heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.
    “No, for the foreseeable future, I think we’re locked into orbit with this thing,” he said. “Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely.”
    Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.
    “That makes sense, because it’s usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air,” said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. “I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn’t realize it could make things hot.”
    “The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it,” he added.
    As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.
    “This is a watershed moment,” renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. “Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source.”
    “Wait, what am I saying?” he said, laughing. “I’m getting ahead of myself. We still don’t understand how it’s possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it’s freezing outside.”

  19. Pace the Human Events article, the science is no longer at issue. The project was stopped, then a couple of weeks later, after the initial interview, was reinstated. The “Investigators” initially wouldn’t say what they were after, which has a “fishing expedition” smell to it.
    An interesting aspect is the people that the Human Events bring in to sum up the significance of it all — Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says what you would expect. But ROB ROY RAMEY is a zoologist. He becames the hero of eastern slope developers when he claimed that a protected mouse really didn’t deserve protection because it wasn’t distinct from related species. In the middle of this, he quit his curator job at the Zoology Department at the Denver Museum of Nature [claiming he was forced out] and has since occupied himself with questioning other designations — “no eagles there, just ravens”, “Big Horn sheep range? nope” etc. and recently joined Solomon & Corcoran in National Post’s “Junk Science Week” series with an article “Dire extinction estimates have not been confirmed in the wild” which generalizes the individual campaigns against the US Endangered Species Act.
    His comments here should be seen in that context. Just this week, his major mouse campaign came to a conclusion —
    // Effective Aug. 6, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will reinstate protections for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act throughout its range. […] The decision comes at the end of a long and controversial battle during which opponents of protection brought forward a genetic study by Rob Roy Ramey that questioned the legitimacy of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a valid subspecies.
    The Ramey study was later discredited during an investigation by an independent panel of genetics experts, who found that the Ramey samples had been “contaminated,” and who confirmed the results of a federal study that concluded that the Preble’s was genetically distinct. //

  20. I passed a dead fox on the highway today.
    At an elevation of 6′, and at a distance of 10′, I could clearly see that the death was due to an elevated temperature between the grass in the ditch and the black top.
    The vehicle ahead of me who struck it is of no bearing in my determination of the findings.

  21. Monnett’s paper is based on 4 dead polar bears sighted in 25 years, and from that he extrapolates a species-wide threat that Al Gore turns into iconic movie imagery, garnering billions in carbon credits, and allowing the US government to launch an endangered species scare despite measured data indicating record numbers of polar bears in the Arctic.
    Meanwhile, in 2007 workers from the Department of Environment of Nunavut tranquilized two polar bears, which subsequently slipped into the water and drowned. According to the Nunavut Government, these were the 3rd and 4th accidental bear drownings in 25 years of research. The departmental director of policy said, “we really need the information from the research and there will be some cost to that … including the odd dead bear.”
    Don’t believe me? Read up:
    [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2007/09/24/bear-deaths.html]
    So a worldwide panic is launched based on the same number of dead bears – 4 in 25 years – that a territorial department considers to be nothing more than the cost of doing science to learn about polar bears. I’ve gotta say, it’s some kind of crisis when global warming can’t manage to kill more bears than government nimrods with dart guns.

  22. I’m sure the mafia will be very interested in this paper and it will serve as part of their defense in murder trials; if someone is found floating in the water they have drowned and no further investigation is necessary. Just think of all the money forensics labs could save using this discovery.

  23. Hey I feel for the guy. My wife rides my ass when I don’t bring home the bacon too. At least he got a 50 million dollar win for his efforts!
    I envy him!

  24. This is really sad. How many billions have been have been spent by hard working taxpayers on this fraud.

  25. Come now, DrD, would you ever publish a paper based on this?
    What if was four dead earthworms on your sidewalk?

  28. Obama’ll prolly give’em another 50 million bucks to make up more better stuff… and why not? 50 million American bucks ain’t worth what they used to be….

  30. And if I saw dead ants on the sidewalk, I’d say, “Dead ant! Dead ant! Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead ant, dead a-a-a-ant…”

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation