Articles Tagged "Steven Milloy"
Saturday, March 9th 2013, 9:12 AM EST
New 4,000-year temperature reconstruction debunked -- 'Check out the Greenland ice core for the relevant period of time' - junkscience.com -- 'As can be plainly seen, modern warming isn't even close to the 'highest' in past 4,000 years'
Also: See below report from Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com
Monday, April 19th 2010, 5:40 PM EDT
If you're in Washington DC tomorrow, you won't want to miss this one.
Hockey stick inventor and Climategate figure Michael Mann has apparently threatened to sue Minnesotans
for Global Warming (M4GW)over its "Hide the Decline" YouTube video.
M4GW is holding a press conference about Mann's threat on Tuesday, April 20 at 10am at the National Press Club (529 14th St, NW, Washington, DC)
Monday, April 23rd 2012, 1:06 PM EDT
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable
However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far”….”
Monday, June 6th 2011, 2:37 PM EDT
Click source to read FULL report from Steve Milloy
Thursday, June 2nd 2011, 10:13 AM EDT
Click source to read FULL article from Steve Milloy
Friday, May 20th 2011, 11:37 AM EDT
Click source to read FULL report from Steve Milloy
Wednesday, April 18th 2012, 10:11 AM EDT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has conducted air pollution experiments on live human subjects that discredit its claims that fine particulate matter kills people.
JunkScience.com obtained the explosive and heretofore undisclosed results through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and reveal them here for the first time.
Last September, JunkScience.com broke the news that EPA researchers had reported in Environmental Health Perspectives the case study of a woman who allegedly suffered atrial fibrillation after being exposed to concentrated airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in an experimental setting.
After disposing of the EPA’s effort to link the woman’s atrial fibrillation with her exposure to PM2.5, we commented:
It’s also worth asking whether this is the only study subject that the EPA has studied. Are there others? What were their results? Do we only get to hear about the one result that could possibly be twisted to fit the EPA agenda?
To answer this question, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency to see if we could get answers those questions.
Click source to read FULL post from Steve Milloy
Monday, May 30th 2011, 11:09 AM EDT
In a bizarre Memorial Day editorial, the Washington Post criticized climate skeptics for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry documents concerning Climategater Michael Mann from the University of Virginia.
The Post labeled the skeptics’ FOIA efforts as “harrassing” and “nuisance tactics.”
The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeace’s efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas — efforts that are truly “harrassing” and “nuisance” in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann.
The editorial is especially gross coming on the day when America commemorates those who died to preserve everyone’s freedoms — not just those of the politically correct.
Wednesday, November 14th 2012, 6:04 PM EST
Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama's re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a "carbon tax" deal in 2013. But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.
A carbon tax would operate as a new sales tax on goods and services that are produced through or otherwise involve the burning of fossil fuels. You might pay the tax in your electric bill, at the gas pump or in the form of higher prices for other good and services.
The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s).
While higher prices for goods and services aren't inherently evil, their merits must be judged by what consumers and society get in return. So let's consider a carbon tax from a climatic perspective.
To give a carbon tax the maximum advantage in our analysis, we'll assume that it would be totally successful in reducing U.S. carbon emissions — i.e., the U.S. emits no carbon dioxide whatsoever from fossil fuels. And let's also imagine that this public policy wonder has this magical effect as of Jan. 1, 2013.
Monday, July 11th 2011, 6:14 PM EDT
A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims to “provide strong empirical support for the assertion that anthropogenic climate change is now a major threat to global biodiversity”… just don’t ask for an example.
The study authors claim to have reviewed 1,120 relevant studies published since 2005, extracting data from 74 of them. They report that:
Mean extinction probability across studies making predictions of the future effects of climate change was 7% by 2100 compared with 15% based on observed responses. After taking account of possible bias in the type of climate change impact analyzed and the parts of the world and taxa studied, there was less discrepancy between the two approaches: predictions suggested a mean extinction probability of 10% across taxa and regions, whereas empirical evidence gave a mean probability of 14%.
30 articles foundshowing page 1 of 3« previous 1 2 3 next »