In The News
Dr. Crichton’s “State of Fear”
Monday January 10, 2005
FACT: There remains no “scientific consensus” concerning global warming as alleged by extremist environmental groups. Michael Crichton is just the latest to be added to the long list questioning the science behind global warming.
Crichton, who is a medical doctor and scientist, eloquently states in the “Author’s Message” at the end of the book, what scientists have suspected for years: “We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age.” Dr. Crichton states that, “Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,” and, “Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made.” And for those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton urges calm: “I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.”
The debate on climate change should be based on fundamental principles of science. Unfortunately, the agenda of the extremist environmental community shuns any debate and calls those who question any of the science behind global warming as “out of the mainstream.” This debate must be decided by hard facts and data – and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as environmental alarmists favor, these scientists must be heard.
Hurricanes and Environment2004
Thursday October 28, 2004
The bill board states, "Global warming equals worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it," and also shows a satellite image of a hurricane approaching the Florida coast.
FACT: Science simply doesn’t support the claims that there is a link between hurricanes and global warming. A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Dr. Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense landfalling hurricanes is either not present, or is very weak.
In fact, if we examine hurricane records for which we have good data going back to the 1800s, there is much evidence supporting the conclusion that we have had more hurricane activity historically than in the last few decades, so an increase the last several years should perhaps be expected as part of natural variability. The overall number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the 1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms has declined somewhat.
Outrageously, Environment2004 uses the recent hurricane devastation to scare voters. According the Hill newspaper, “The LCV’s main focus has been on such swing areas as Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake counties, where the group identified voters with high “persuade-ability” rankings. LCV, a member of the Environment2004 coalition promises to spend $3million dollars in targeted counties in Florida. The Hill further reports, “The LCV says it’s a operating off a new election playbook, however, that could add the environment to the list of secondary issues that might end up giving Kerry the final push he needs to win this dead-heat election.” Unfortunately, their playbook is to promote a lie, and they know it.
Heinz-Kerry Environmental Campaign Contributions
Wednesday October 20, 2004
FACT: The Miami-Herald, in reviewing the $3 million dollar League of Conservation Voters television commercial in Florida, describes the ad using words like “misleading,” “the ad falsely implies,” and “overstated.” Meanwhile, the National Wildlife Foundation is contributing to the Heinz-Kerry Foundation attack campaign by releasing a misleading report. The attack "report" makes the specious claim that power plants in several battleground states can achieve 90 percent cuts in mercury emissions for pennies a day despite that fact that there is no proof that current technology consistently achieves anything near that -- no matter what the cost. That is according to the best engineers in the business. The fact is that President Bush’s plan to reduce mercury and other power plant emissions by 70 percent is reasonable, aggressive, and the largest emission reduction plan ever proposed by and American president. It’s too bad that the LCV is using this $3 million dollars on misleading attacks ads. If they really cared about the environment in the State of Florida why not use it to plant 7 million Ponderosa pine seedlings, or restore and protect 3,000 acres of wetlands, or even retire nearly 14,000 tons of S02 credits? We know their real agenda is about partisan Democrat politics -- not the environment. Hopefully the American people can see that as well.
Kerry Debating Kyoto
Friday October 15, 2004
FACT: Unfortunately for Senator Kerry, the Kyoto Protocol is a no flip-flop treaty. As he well knows the United States can either ratify or reject the treaty. As defined by the terms of the treaty, Kyoto is nonnegotiable and cannot be modified. This leaves Senator Kerry in a troubling position. Senator Kerry agrees with President Bush that the treaty is flawed and joins Bush’s decision not to support ratifying the treaty. On the flip side however, he attacks President Bush for rejecting the treaty even though he says he himself would have rejected Kyoto. In the end, does this mean Senator Kerry is attacking his own position hoping to fool everyone else?
Fundraising for Democrats
Friday October 8, 2004
FACT: Liberal environmental organizations eying an opportunity to raise millions of campaign dollars took advantage of the current tax code and bypass McCain-Feingold becoming experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of legality, and burying their political activities under the guise of non-profit environmental improvement The Washington Post article quoted a former Federal Election Commission official stating, “In the wake of the ban on party-raised soft money, evidence is mounting that money is slithering through on other routes as organizations maintain various accounts, tripping over each other, shifting money between 501(c)(3)’s, (c)(4)’s, and 527's.... It’s big money”
Today’s environmental groups are simply Democrat political machines with millions of dollars in contributions and expenditures each year for the purpose of raising more money to pursue their agenda. Especially in this election year, the American voter should see these groups and their many affiliate organizations as they are - the newest insidious conspiracy of political action committees and perhaps the newest multi-million dollar manipulation of federal election laws.
More information on the political involvement of these environmental groups can be accessed by viewing a recent report by the Environment and Public Works Committee by clinking here: Political Report: Click here for link: (.pdf
RUSSIA AND KYOTO
Tuesday October 5, 2004
FACT: President Putin’s decision to ratify Kyoto has nothing to do with improving Russia’s environment and everything to do with politics. Putin knew he could accommodate European powers by beginning the process to ratify Kyoto. A Reuter’s article makes this point clear quoting Russian Economic Development Minister German Gref saying, “The protocol hardly has any real impact on improving ecology. It is fairly symbolic.” The reporter added that Graf believes, “the cabinet aimed at setting a good international precedent rather than focusing on economic or environmental concerns.”
Just how much will the Kyoto Accords help stop climate change? Not much! A Reuter’s article reports scientists need at least a 70 percent reduction. The article explains, “But without the United States -- which withdrew in 2001 -- and with loopholes designed to entice Russia and Japan into ratifying, Kyoto may ultimately only cut emissions by as little as one percent, some analysts say.” Even Greenpeace’s Steve Sawyer admits just how little of a difference saying “The 5-percent (the originally proposed reduction) was a baby step; this is an even more baby step.”
Considering the limited environmental impact, how much will the Russian economy be forced to suffer? According to Andrei Illarionov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top economic adviser, “We should call the Kyoto Protocol an interstate gulag,” and further stated, “In the gulag, though, you got the same ration daily and it didn’t get smaller day by day. In the end we had to call the Kyoto Protocol an international Auschwitz.”
Here in the United States Kyoto faces bipartisan opposition. Following negotiations with then President Clinton, the United States Senate sent the President a clear message passing a unanimous resolution against the Kyoto Accords. Even Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry voted against implementing the Kyoto Accord. On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate sent President Clinton a clear message in passing the Byrd/Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95 to 0.
While Kyoto supporters may soon celebrate implementation of the Kyoto Accords, they along with everyone else understand implementation means insignificant environmental progress. Signatories to the Kyoto will be forced to suffer economic hardship while seeing only minimal if any movement in reductions of greenhouse gasses. Russia’s steps yesterday should in no way be seen as a victory for the environment and must be seen for what it is: political appeasement.
Clearing the Confusion on Fish Consumption
Wednesday September 22, 2004
FACT: The science behind the EPA and FDA warnings encouraging the public to limit fish consumption are flawed. A new report by the Center for Science and Public Policy called, A Review of the Current Literature Concerning Mercury, Fish Consumption and Human Health squashes faulty science behind the EPA and FDA warning and instead, highly encourages eating fish for numerous health benefits.
Excerpts from the Executive Summery:
“The EPA Reference Dose, the root of the recent alarm and confusion, should be re-examined. EPA¹s Reference Dose of 5.8 ppb is an ultra-precautionary level that was derived by introducing an added safety factor of 10 from the EPA¹s chosen Benchmark Dose Lower Limit (BMDL) value of 58 ppb. In turn, that BMDL value was derived from statistical analysis of limited data from the critically flawed Faroe Islands children study.”
“Both epidemiological and clinical data suggest no actual danger to average American women and children from consuming a wide variety of fish from our restaurants and grocery stores, but there is much potential harm from avoiding or restricting fish. Therefore, scientifically weak and distorted campaigns of alarmism are an irresponsible endangerment to public health.”
The report can be found at: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/misc/index.html
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mercury
Friday September 17, 2004
Two examples of Kennedy’s claims:
CLAIM: “It's now unsafe to eat any freshwater fish in Connecticut because of mercury contamination. The New York City reservoir system is so contaminated with mercury that no fish in them can be safely eaten. Most of the fish in New York state can no longer safely be eaten. All the fish in 17 states can no longer safely be eaten because of mercury contamination.”
CLAIM : “One out of every six American women of childbearing years now has so much mercury in her body that her children are at risk for permanent IQ loss, kidney and liver damage, blindness, and possibly autism because of the mercury.
FACT: The question is: are pregnant women and children being poisoned today? The answer is an emphatic “NO!” As with many things found in nature, mercury exposure can be lethal in sufficient quantities. At lower doses, there is no health effect. In short, the dose makes the poison. Because mercury is an element found in nature that can neither be created nor destroyed, it has been in fish in small quantities since before humans first discovered fire.
Of the two biggest studies ever conducted on the health impact of mercury on Island fish-eating populations – who consume far more fish than Americans – one found no ill effects and the measured a very slight effect at very high mercury levels in the blood stream – 58 parts per billion.
Not a single woman or child in the United States NHANES database has recorded that much mercury in their bloodstream. All of Kennedy’s claims stem from the number of women exceeding an extremely stringent “just in case” standard that is ten times lower than the 58 parts per billion where even a modest impact was observed in one study.
Jonathan Adler, an assistant professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, is right in his recent column when he writes, “It's a shame that in their efforts to stop environmental pollution, Kennedy and other activists have become so willing to pollute the truth.” These types of attacks by liberal special interest groups are coming all too common.
The Wall Street Journal further comments on this polluted truth saying, “The silver lining here may be that these environmentalist scares are becoming so routine and over-the-top that they are having less public impact. Americans are figuring out that green activists have abandoned any claim to scientific objectivity as they pursue political power.” Let’s hope they are right.
And the answer is…
Friday May 28, 2004
“Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question: ‘Could this really happen?’ I think we need to answer that question.”
FACT: The movie is pure science fiction. The answer to Gore’s question has come from many of his own supporters.
“This is a dramatization, not a documentary and is above all a Hollywood movie.” Friends of the Earth Director, Tony Juniper
“The Earth’s climate is never going to flip in a matters of days the way it does in the movie.” Worldwatch’s Sawin, Day After Tomorrow Movie: Could Ice Age Occur Overnight, National Geographic News, May 18, 2004.
“The … scenario the film portrays is scientifically ludicrous..." Professor Phil Jones, climatologist at the Climate Research Unit, The Independent, author Steve Connor May 13, 2004
" The Day After Tomorrow takes its starting point from science, but ends up telling a dramatic and entertaining science-fiction story." Professor Mike Hulme, scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, The Independent, author Steve Connor May 13, 2004
Mike Hulme asked the audience to consider whether good science and good filmmaking could go together. A few minutes later it became obvious that the answer was no. Professor Mike Hulme, scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, A hard rain's a gonna fall, The Guardian, May 14, 2004.
"The Day After Tomorrow' bears as much resemblance to climate science as 'Independence Day' does to the possibility of extraterrestrial life." Peter Schwartz, co-author of a Defense Department doomsday report, New York Daily News-Entertainment, author Brian Kates, The Future... or just Hollywood make-believe?
“My first reaction was, ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster because it is such a distortion of the science.’” – Dan Schrag (paleoclimatologist, Harvard U.), quoted in “Scientists warm up to ‘Day After Tomorrow,’” AP article from MSNBC Web site, May 7, 2004
“A lot of the stuff on abrupt climate change is totally off the wall.” Kevin Trenberth (researcher, Nat’l Center for Atmospheric Research), quoted in “Disaster movie’s focus on rapid change expected to set off renewed debate,” E&E Publishing’s Greenwire, by Andrew Freedman, 4/5/2004
Dan Lashoff (NRDC senior scientist): “These extreme story lines can easily confuse or mislead audiences.” Quoted in “Disaster movie’s focus on rapid change expected to set off renewed debate,” E&E Publishing’s Greenwire, by Andrew Freedman, 4/5/2004
“[t]he only way to trigger a Gulf Stream – caused ice age ‘is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the earth’s rotation or both.’” Carl Wunsch MIT and world – class oceanographer. Nature Magazine
“There’s nothing secret about it, there’s nothing Pentagon about it and there’s no prediction in it.” Doug Randall co-author of the Defense Department doomsday report, Oakland Tribune, February 24, 2004.
“[d]isappointing that it procreates a rather wrong scientific impression” Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado, Washington Post, May 16, 2004.
Fiction or Fiction?
Thursday May 27, 2004
Take the “Extremist” test.
Can you separate out the science fiction of the movie from the claims that have been made by environmental groups?
A) “Extreme weather is wreaking havoc across continents.”
B) “Polar ice is melting, ice shelves splintering, and sea levels rising. People in coastal communities and wildlife have uncertain futures.”
C) “Instead of developing gradually, allowing for some adaptation, climate change could cause a sudden cataclysmic event.”
D) “Unprecedented wildfire, drought and flooding have devastated communities. In Europe the last decade was the hottest in 500 years. Near-record temperatures have been recorded across the US, Hawaii and Alaska. Over 1500 people died in India as temperatures topped 120 degrees.”
E) Melting glaciers and increased rainfall are already “freshening” the North Atlantic, watering-down the salty make-up of the Gulf Stream. Circulation of this warm current – vital to Europe and the United State's temperate climate - could be shut down.
The answer?
NONE OF THEM! These are all claims made by environmental extremists. While most credible scientists agree the movie is fictitious, we can now see the environmental community is living in their own fantasy world – very similar to the one based in the film.
FACT: Environmentalists claiming “Global Cooling” of yesterday are the same ones now claiming “Global Warming” of today. Politicians and activists who use scare tactics instead of sound science to promote public policy do more harm to society than to help. There are too many other important needs facing the United States today than those based on science fiction.