Public Court RecordsPublic Court Records – Search And Find All Public Court Records

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Chapter 4 of my book, titled, “An Inconvenient Hoax,” systematically exposes and confronts all the most current science fiction being shoved down our throats by the Luddite absolutists and pseudo-intellectual scam artists of the left. It is devastating. Unsurprisingly, there is a flurry of new data pouring in even further confirming how utterly baseless this invented Green Scare really is, now even from Obama’s own people. Much like the Swine Flu and about a gazillion other contrived alarmist fantasies from decades past (breast implants, Alar, the Millenium bug, DDT, etc.), public faith in the environmentalist religion is consequently fading, and fast. As Investor’s Business Daily put it: 

Even countries utterly saturated with the left’s absurd scare-mongering on this, like Australia, are producing loud voices of reason in an ocean of bogus, hysterical environmental propaganda.As Andrew Bolt, of The Herald Sun put it (on 4/29/09): 

Bolt then issued a challenge… 

The List… 

Bolt wasn’t finished… 

The evidence is overwhelming. Astrologers are more scientific than liberals. This anti-science crusade is about nothing more than Democrat power and control, as with everything the left does.

Read More

Computer hackers revealed electronic communications involving Pennsylvania State University’s Professor Michael Mann and England’s University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, in November of 2009. The media scrutinized these e-mails because they implied that there was some misbehavior involving the two men. It seemed that statistics were kept from becoming public in order to persuade the peer review process for some scientific papers which had points of view dissenting from those of the Climate Research Unit.  For example, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ie, from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” wrote Professor Jones, in one such e-mail. Jones has since stepped down as head of the Climate Research Unit.

 

Although Professor Jones has defended the matter within his e-mails, most recently to BBC News in a question-and-answer format (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm), what he wrote has sparked a public outcry in relation to how scientists handle statistics, especially in relation to climatology. Responding to his critics in the interview with BBC, he says that the “…’trick’ did not refer to any intention to deceive — but rather ‘a convenient way of achieving something’.”

 

We have got to ask why and how something like “Climategate” could take place. What do the records truly reflect? This leads us to ask if there is there a “correct” tactic to interpreting scientific facts, and if not, how does one educate a young scientist to clarify statistics to reflect the best possible representation of reality? If the periods studied do not show a warming trend of statistical consequence, what does this mean? How well do the interpretations of the facts point toward what is truly occurring with the climate? Was the need to “hide the decline” a scientific obligation or was it political? Furthermore, if it was political how much should politics persuade the interpretation of scientific statistics?

 

First, interpreting scientific information and predicting climate change are not precise science–there isn’t a single accurate approach to either one. Because there are numerous variables, climatology is extremely complex. Jones notes just a few of the numerous information points a climate scientist must take into consideration: “human and natural influences… natural internal variability of the climate system… Volcanic influences… Solar influences…” Because of all the variables, it becomes necessary to take a solid look at the collected facts from various viewpoints.

 

Second, one must not be affected by political opinion when researching such a decidedly politicized issue as climate change. Although Jones’ records showed otherwise, it seems as though he might have felt pressured to present the “right” information. He may have felt pressure to do so because of the combination of science with politics. When questioned by the BBC, Jones admitted that, although there has been certain warming, there has not been significant global warming from 1995 to the present, and that “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.” What this means is that Dr. Jones may have felt the need to stretch his information to look sympathetic to the topic of climate change. Now there are doubts cast on all of his findings, not only those referred to in his e-mails to Mann.

 

Last, the general public is not well-versed in thinking critically when it comes to scientific matters. Science is not black and white and most scientific conclusions are intricate and layered. Rather than looking at records neutrally with a healthy dose of uncertainty, every so often the media and politicians will take their own point of view and then seek scientific records to back up their already-formed opinions. This leads to an imbalance in the way scientific data are presented to society.

 

These are significant concerns when it comes to science and how scientists portray scientific data to the public, and these problems point to a dire need to revamp science education. There will always be a need for professional thoughts, but it is not good to only rely on the “experts,” and this state of affairs proves that every person needs to better comprehend the scientific process. There is a significant need for journalists, politicians and everyday readers who follow the news to be better educated to think critically and grasp the limitations of scientific research. Better science education is not merely a necessity for young people who want to be scientists when they grow up.

Read More