Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Another Huge Global Warming Data Scandal

Rush Limbaugh

global-warming-hoax1

RUSH: I need to tell you something that you’re not going to see in the Drive-By Media, and it’s huge. In setting this up, I want to remind you why I have spent so much time on the whole subject of climate change and global warming throughout the entirety of this program, 29 years.

A Front for Socialism

It is because that issue, climate change, contains every element of extreme liberalism and socialism that needs to be understood and opposed. Climate change, if they succeed in this, climate change is close to health care in terms of, if you get nationalized climate change, nationalized health care, then you are very close to totally controlling the way people live their lives.

You have succeeded in restricting people’s liberty and freedom in perhaps the greatest way you can. That’s why climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is of such paramount importance to me, because it’s not just a single issue. It’s every wet dream the left has encapsulated in an issue. It has government control, it has tax increases, it has the expansion of government, it has decisions and mandates of what kind of car you can and can’t drive, what kind of food you can and can’t eat, what you can do with your own private property. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of private property.

NOAA manipulated land readings

NOAA manipulated land readings

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

I mean, it’s just horrible. And it turns out there’s yet another scandal of totally fake data that was purposely made up and lied about right before the Paris accords that was designed to sway duped nations into spending, wasting millions of dollars in implementing policies designed to stop runaway temperature increases when there have not been any. And the fake data came from the United States. It came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the people that give you your weather forecast.

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant  John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

It was exposed by a whistleblower in the organization who had seen enough, a scientist named Bates, a Dr. Bates, and he had had his fill of the lies and the distortions.

The Daily Mail on Sunday in the U.K. revealed a landmark paper exaggerated global warming. It was rushed through in time to influence the Paris Agreement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.

RUSH: To the global warming hoax. I want to remind you that Donald Trump is ridiculed to this day for claiming… All my little buddies on their tech blogs and many places on the left still ridicule Trump for claiming that global warming is a hoax started by the ChiComs to make American businesses uncompetitive. Now, global warming is a hoax. It is a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting population of the world who have been blamed for doing great damage to our climate through no fault of their own.

Liberal Lies

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

cartoon-global-warming-hoaxThe CO2 is pollution. The stuff that you exhale is pollution. Barbecue pits and driving around your SUVs emits the greenhouse gas. The earth is broiling! The earth isn’t gonna be habitable in another 35 years. But there is redemption, and that is if you let government take over and if you stop driving these behemoth cars and let government tell you what kind of car to drive.

Stop eating Big Macs, beef, and all this other stuff and agree to tax increases and globalization. Let the United Nations basically determine how nations can function; then you can redeem yourself. And for every Prius you see on the road — for the most part, not all, but for the most part — you see a dupe. You see somebody who actually thinks they’re saving the planet, doing good. Everybody wants their lives to have meaning — and if you can save the planet, man, can you feel proud of yourself! You feel like your life has meaning.

So you go out, you buy an electric car or you keep your thermostat at 79 or 80 in the summer, and at 65 in the winter — and you sweat your butt off and then you freeze — and you’re saving the planet and all that. It’s bohunk. We don’t have the power to stop climate change, which means we don’t have the power to affect it at all. We can’t stop it. Lord knows we’ve been trying. Anyway, the point of all this is that there’s enough clear evidence out there that it is a hoax, that data is faked, that data is forged. But the Drive-Bys will not believe ’cause it’s a leftist cause, folks.

The reason that I’m so devoted to explaining this issue over and over is because it contains practically every aspect of liberalism that is dangerous.

That’s why it is a seminal issue to the left. Everything they want is wrapped up in it. Every bit of power, every bit of control. You couple climate change and health care, and freedom as you have known it ceases to exist. It is that evil, and it is that dangerous. And I’m gratified most polling data today shows that we’re nowhere near a majority of Americans who accept it or believe it or even consider it to be crucial.

It doesn’t stop the media from portraying it is an issue that all the right people agree with, that all the smart people agree on. If you don’t see this, then you’re a denier, you’re a kook, you’re equivalent to people that didn’t admit the Holocaust and so forth. The first substantive indication we had that this stuff is all faked and phonied up was a hack of an email server at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. in which the whistleblower there was somebody within the climate change movement, the so-called scientific community.

By the way, there’s another reason that… It’s real simple how this is not science. All you have to hear them say, “A consensus of scientists agree.”

There is no consensus in science. Science is not a democratic thing. It doesn’t get a vote.

A consensus of scientists thinking the earth is flat, for example, it doesn’t make the earth flat. There is no vote. A consensus of scientists doesn’t mean anything. In this issue, it means that they found all the scientists who are being paid via the grant process to produce research that the sponsors want.

global-warming-hoax4-moneyAnd they get their consensus. Algore has become filthy rich off of this hoax. The emails at East Anglia indicated — emails from scientist to scientist back and forth, back and forth — indicated and illustrated how they were changing and faking data from the Medieval period. They have to show throughout history temperatures much lower than today in order to make people believe that there’s an unstoppable warming going on that can be tied to industrialization. You go back to the Medieval period when we didn’t have any industrialization at all.

There were no fossil fuels, for example, so the only thing putting CO2 in the atmosphere was cows via methane and humans exhaling. But aside from that, you know, ’til the railroads came along and the Industrial Age. Smokestacks, factories, and this kind of thing. So they want to try to tie this unstoppable, dangerous warming to the invention of the combustible-fuel engine and progress related to that, as a means of indicting capitalism.

global-warming-hoax5-leaders-dupedClimate change is basically an anti-capitalist, pro-communist enterprise.

 

Truth unreported

You haven’t seen it yet, and I doubt you will see it. I know you won’t see this in the New York Times, and therefore my little tech blogger buddies will never see it. You won’t see it at BuzzFeed, which means my tech blogger buddies will not see it. You will not see this in the Washington Post; you won’t see it on the ABC, CBS, NBC. It’s in the Sunday edition of the U.K. Daily Mail. Headline:Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data — The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming.

“It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change. America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.” In other words, the culprit in the latest exposing of the hoax is NOAA! They run all the weather satellites supposedly collecting all the temperature data.

FAKE NEWS:

chickenlittle1“The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 … never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.” In other words, up until this report came out, there hadn’t been any warming, and the climate change people were alarmed.

This report says the fact that there was no warming was a mistake, that there was no pause, that record heat breaking had continued to happen when everybody thought there was no warming taking place. And they said instead of the fact that no warming took place that in fact temperatures have been rising faster than anybody expected.

This report was “launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

TRUTH:

global-warming-hoax2-big-gov” The problem these people are all having is there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 to 18 years. Actually (sigh), even to say that gives their existence some credence. (sigh) But it has to be done to illustrate this.

There hasn’t been any warming! Their climate models said that by now temperatures would be X degree warmer and sea levels would be X centimeters higher.

None of it’s happened, and so they have to come up with an excuse for it. They have to come up with a reason for the “pause” in the warming. “The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data,” which is NOAA, “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

“A high-level whistleblower has told” the Daily Mail… This is an American scientist. His name is [Dr. John] Bates, he works at NOAA, and he’s fed up seeing what he’s seeing. He told the U.K. Daily Mail “that [NOAA] breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and [U.K. Prime Minster] David Cameron at the U.N. climate conference in Paris in 2015,” . . . .

which, by the way, Trump says we’re pulling out of and we’re not gonna live by, and thank goodness for that.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

chickenlittle2They made it up, just exactly what happened with the email chains and threads at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The report that was submitted to scientists and world leaders before the Paris meeting was never subjected to rigorous internal evaluation, the kind that this whistleblower himself had devised. This is the old peer review. They had not run the new report by anybody to let them review it, to make sure that it was right. It was not evaluated. Somebody just wrote it up and submitted it.

“Dr. Bates’ vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden –” He objected at the time, “You can’t do this. You can’t do this. We’re lying, it isn’t right.” But his superiors at NOAA overrode his observations in what he says is “a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Again, the Pausebuster paper is the paper presented to people like Obama and others before the Paris meeting is to say, “You know what, that pause that we think we’ve had for 15 years, it actually hasn’t been a pause. We have been setting heat records these last 15 years. We need to act even faster than we ever knew.” It was all lies. There was no truth to it.

science-fraud-money-not-truth“The whistleblower’s disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. … In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data.”

 This does not surprise me. I think this whole movement is fraudulent because I don’t think that they can accurately tell us what global temperatures were in the 1600s and 1700s, the 1800s, just not possible. The tree trunk data, tree ring data, ice core, it’s all made-up stuff to be beyond our ability to comprehend. They’re scientists, they wear the white coats, we, therefore, believe them.

Cooler Today

global-warming-hoax5-noaa-adjusted-readingsThe ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

The fact of the matter is it has been much warmer previous times on earth than it is today. That cuts against every theory they’ve got about industrialization and burning of fossil fuels creating CO2. But before you even get to that this whole thing is bogus to me because I don’t believe that we human beings are capable of doing what we are being accused of doing. Because if we were, we would be able to stop the process.

By the way, and I’m not convinced that the warming is bad, even if it is happening. And we know it is. The climate is never constant. You know, the big question for me, folks, is one about the vanity and the arrogance of all this. These people in the scientific community promoting this hoax have got everybody believing that the temperatures and the climate and everything as of this moment in the history of the earth is what’s normal, and any deviation from the present is a crisis.

 How do we know what is normal? You know, ice ages have lasted 10, 20, hundreds of years, and they ended. How did they end? What caused the ice to melt way back when before there was fossil fuel? Way before there was humanity living lives of progress, what ended ice ages? What brought about warming areas when we weren’t doing anything to cause it? The answer is, it’s way beyond our pay scale.

Hoax

global-warming-hoax3-swindleWe just simply don’t have the ability to do this. And the evidence is — to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 years. During those 15 years, why didn’t they say, “See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.”

Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, “Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –

They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/06/another-huge-global-warming-data-scandal/

 

Related Links

Science Facts, DNA, and Intelligent Design

Science Facts, DNA, and Intelligent Design

What is the Best Evidence for Intelligent Design? Interview with Brian Johnson.

by Sean Mcdowell

science-dna-intelligent-designLast year, when I was speaking at a church in South Dakota for a Heroic Truth Event, I met Brian Johnson. He invited me on his Podcast, and we had a great conversation about “hot” cultural issues today.

Brian is one of the founders of South Dakota Apologetics, an organization dedicated to spreading the Gospel and helping fellow Christians better understand why they believe what they believe. Brian and his buddies at SDA actually offer their speaking services for free, so check ‘em out!

Brian is especially passionate about the evidence for intelligent design. Given his interest and expertise, I recently caught up with him and asked him some pressing questions about the evidence for intelligent design. Enjoy!

SEAN MCDOWELL: Are there any recent scientific advances that are changing what we know about the inner workings of the human body?

BRIAN JOHNSON: I think that accolade needs to go to the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953 by Crick and Watson. Once this was discovered it blew open the doors to a whole new world of biology. From that we have been able to begin to piece together an entirely new understanding of what it takes to make our bodies function. This has led to major advancements in medicine as well as many other disciplines. The discovery of DNA has also enabled us to build an incredibly strong case for Intelligent Design.

creationhandsSEAN MCDOWELL: What got you interested in DNA as evidence for design? And why do you think this is such an important area for Christians, and in particular students, to understand?

BRIAN JOHNSON: I’ve always been interested in science and it was the scientific evidences for God that really started to convince me of His existence. As I started to look into the biological evidences I was awestruck at how obvious it was to make a design inference based on the inner workings of the cell. The molecular machines that are working inside each of our bodies at this moment scream of a designer.

If more Christians understood the beautiful structure of how the different processes within our bodies function I know it would not only strengthen their faith but would give them a much greater sense of just how amazing God’s creation really is. And this is certainly true for students who are often not exposed to the evidence for ID since our schools only teach Darwinian evolution.

SEAN MCDOWELL: Can you give a few specific examples of things in DNA that point to design?

BRIAN JOHNSON: Sure!

The first argument for Intelligent Design is based on the information we find in the cell. The arrangements of the four nucleotides, ACTG, contain specified information and convey meaning for the production and arrangements of proteins. Stephen Meyer makes the case for this in his book Signature in the Cell.

The second is a process called DNA error correction (aka, DNA repair). This process is mind-boggling and is currently at work in your body as you read this. Your body is creating new DNA at this moment in a process known as DNA Replication. During this process the DNA double helix is split in two, kind of like a zipper on a coat. As you unzip your coat you then have two sides of that zipper. Now pretend that the ‘teeth’ of the zipper on one side of the coat are each represented by a nucleotide letter of either a, c, t, or g. During the replication process a brand new set of ‘teeth’ are joined to the existing set of ‘teeth’ much the same way as when you zip the coat up and the two set of ‘teeth’ are joined together to seal the coat. If during this process an incorrect nucleotide is put down an error correcting process catches the error, stops the process, plucks out the wrong nucleotide, inserts the correct nucleotide, and then allows the replication process to continue. Describing this process as mind-blowing is actually an understatement.

The third process is one that has just recently been discovered. It now appears that in addition to repair mechanisms DNA also contains proofreading processes as well that make sure the information that passes through it is as accurate as possible. This all happens where messenger RNA transcripts are translated into proteins. The complexity of these processes is simply inconceivable.

SEAN MCDOWELL: Isn’t Intelligent Design based on a “God of the gaps” fallacy?

BRIAN JOHNSON: The God of the gaps objection is a common one. But it is mistaken. Rather than arguing from gap in our knowledge (i.e., what we can’t explain), Intelligent Design reasons from what we do know about the world by considering all the evidence and making an “inference to the best explanation.” This is the exact same scientific method Darwin used in his theory of natural selection. If you want to disregard the method we just used to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause for what we find in the genome, then you must also reject Darwin’s conclusion as well. The knife cuts both ways.

What is the Best Evidence for Intelligent Design? Interview with Brian Johnson.

 

Truth Zone: Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Truth Zone:

Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change

James Delingpole

Donald Trump isn’t just skeptical about global warming. He is what the alarmists would call a full-on climate change “denier”.

Donald Trump Tweets:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bulls**t! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.

 

RushGlobalWarmingObamaNo world leader has ever been this outspoken on climate change. The only other one to have come close to this position was former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott – but he just didn’t have the support base to maintain it and was ousted in a coup staged by one of the climate alarmist establishment, Malcolm Turnbull.

But with a climate skeptic running the most powerful nation in the world, the $1.5 trillion per annum climate change industry is going to start to unravel big time.

A Trump presidency is likely to be good news for fossil fuels (and heavy industry that needs cheap energy to survive); and very bad news for renewables.

chickenlittle2To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell.

Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.

Here’s how Newsweek views him:

Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.

Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.

Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.

chickenlittle1Yup, greenies. That climate change gravy train you’ve been riding these last four decades looks like it’s headed for a major, Atlas-Shrugged-style tunnel incident…

 

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change

Heritage Foundation Report: Science Facts Reveal Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

Heritage Foundation Report:

Science Facts Reveal  Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

A Baby With 3 Parents Has Been Born. These Are the Dangers You Should Know About.

Anna Higgins

baby-eugenicsThe first baby with three parents has been born this year, raising troubling questions about our culture’s dedication to human dignity.

The U.S. Constitution is predicated on the principle of the inherent worth and dignity of the human individual. Fundamental rights do not depend on any other fact than that each of us is a unique human being. Thus, any proposed legal action or scientific endeavor is subordinate to those rights.

Often, however, we find that proposed scientific “advances”—particularly in areas like genetic engineering—trample on the rights and dignity of the individual.

Genetic manipulation resulting in embryos that incorporate DNA from three adults has been in laboratory experimentation phases since the 1990s, but now the first birth of a baby with genetic material from three parents has been reported. Multiple methods of creating three-parent embryos exist (a detailed explanation can be found here).

In this case, New York City fertility specialist Dr. John Zhang used a method called “maternal spindle transfer” to create five such human embryos—one of which was transferred to a womb and resulted in live birth. While the baby is now a few months old, New Scientist didn’t break the news until September.

The overall goal, sometimes called “mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT),” is to replace genetically defective mitochondria—the organelles responsible for generating energy and metabolic function of the cell—in a woman’s egg with healthy mitochondria using a female donor egg.

abortion-embryoGenetically defective mitochondria can cause serious, even lethal, health problems. But MRT procedures actually transfer a nucleus, repository of the majority of the cell’s genetic material (which means they use human cloning technology), into the presence of genetically different mitochondria.

This is germline (heritable) genetic modification, which means that the modification affects not only the new manufactured individual but also will be passed on to future generations.

The risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents.

eugenics3Zhang performed the transfer of the genetically manipulated embryo to a woman’s womb in Mexico because it is currently illegal in the United States. Rather than pause to debate the potential consequences of such manipulation, American scientists are pushing to make this procedure legal in the U.S., touting its “glorious potential.”

In 2015, Congress passed an amendment to the omnibus spending bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., which prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from entertaining any submission that proposes “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include heritable genetic modification.”

Thus, Zhang, unable to get approval to proceed with genetic manufacture of embryos in the U.S. and unwilling to debate the consequences of these human experiments, fled the country to do his experiments.

Note, however, that the Aderholt amendment does not prohibit human gene editing on born individuals. Congressional prohibition of the practice highlights the importance of the dignity of the human person and gives us a chance to consider all the potential ramifications of forging ahead with practices that amount to irreversible genetic modifications of human beings without their consent.

The United Kingdom has approved creation of three-parent embryos, and a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee recently recommended that the FDA approve three-parent techniques for in vitro fertilization.

anti-cloningThe caveats included with the recommendations do little to assuage concerns. The committee recommends that this genetic engineering be 1) used only for women with serious, life-threatening mitochondrial disease; 2) require long-term medical follow-up for children born with genetic material from three parents; and 3) that only male embryos be transferred to the mother’s uterus.

First of all, risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents. Parents are looking to this procedure because they wish to have a biological child, but do not wish to pass on a genetic disease. This prompts the question: Is the wish for biologically-related offspring sufficient to justify germline genetically modified children?

Eugenics, again?

eugenics1-margaret-sangerConcern that these procedures will eventually give rise to full-blown eugenics practices is valid. Where do we draw the ethical line when we take the next step of using mitochondrial genetic engineering—or other genetic manipulation techniques—to create people with other “desirable” characteristics?

Second, the potential health risks for these genetically modified children and their offspring are unknown. If the past failure of embryonic research and experimentation in the areas of disease treatment or vaccine development is any indication, there are far-reaching health consequences to be considered.

The National Academy of Sciences committee tacitly admits to the potential for long-term harmful effects by recommending long-term follow-up and male embryo transfer only. Recently, the Charlotte Lozier Institute published a paper highlighting the problem of sex-selective abortion in the U.S. and abroad. The selection of male-only embryos for transfer only exacerbates that problem, as the female embryos will be either immediately destroyed or used in further embryo-destructive experimentation.

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

Each embryo is biologically a unique human individual. Despite the “glorious potential” of genetic manipulation of human embryos, we must never lose sight of the preeminent consideration of human dignity and ethical practice.

This is an issue of Human Rights

In the end, this is an issue of human rights—not of harmless scientific experimentation. Congress was right to hold the dignity of the person above the impulses of scientific experimentation, and robust public debate on the ethics of this practice and the potential alternatives to it should follow.

 

The Dangers of 3-Parent Babies

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral

keyMoral of the Story: The birds are eaten by the fox; the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything one is told.

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. and in the morning,  It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? ~Jesus, Matthew 16:2,3

chickenlittle2CHICKEN LITTLE was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little was so scared she started shouting: “Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!”

So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.
Henny Penny asked, “Where are you going, Chicken Little?”
Chicken Little yelled, “Oh, help! The sky is falling!”
Henny Penny asked, “How do you know?”
Chicken Little replied, “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Henny Penny yelled, “This is terrible, just terrible! We’d better hurry up.”
So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.
chickenlittle4Ducky Lucky asked, “Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?”
Chicken Little & Henny Penny yelled, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We’re going to tell the king!”
Ducky Lucky asked, “How do you know?”
Chicken Little replied, “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head.”
Ducky Lucky joined in the yelling, “Oh dear, oh dear! We’d better run!”
So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.
chickenlittle5Goosey Loosey seeing the group said, “Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little shouted, “We’re running for our lives!”
Henny Penny shouted, “The sky is falling!”
Ducky Lucky yelled, “And we’re running to tell the king!”
Goosey Loosey asked, “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little yelled, “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
chickenlittle6Goosey Loosey joined in the yelling and shouting, “Goodness! Then I’d better run with you.”
And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..
Turkey Lurkey said, “Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”
Chicken Little screamed, “Help! Help!”
Henny Penny shouted, “We’re running for our lives!”
Ducky Lucky quacked, “The sky is falling!”
Goosey Loosey yelled, “And we’re running to tell the king!”
chickenlittle1Turkey Lurkey asked, “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little yelled, “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Turkey Lurkey joined in the noise, “Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I’d better run with you.”
So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.
Foxy Loxy slyly asked. “Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?”
Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) all yelled, “Help! Help!” It’s not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we’re running to tell the king!”
chickenlittle3Foxy Loxy was surprised, but asked, “How do you know the sky is falling?”
Chicken Little shouted, “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”
Foxy Loxy saw an opportunity and said, “I see. Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”
So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.

Moral of the Story: The birds are eaten by the fox; the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything one is told.

RushGlobalWarmingObamaLiberal Lies about Global Warming

Limbaugh Letter, July 2015, 11

Lie # 1: The earth has a fever, caused by people (mostly Americans) building factories, driving SUVs, wasting energy.

Fact: EARTH WARMS AND COOLS

The planet has been warming and cooling periodically since the beginning of time. ~Principia Scientific International

Lie #2

Apocalypse is coming! Climate models predict dramatic increases in global temperature.

Fact: COMPUTER PREDICTIONS= OOPS

To date, the computer models have been massively wrong. ~Prof. John Christy, University of Alabama, [UK] Daily Mail

Lie #3 This is the warmest year on record! It’s the hottest decade ever!

Fact: WARMING IS “ON HOLD”

Actual measurements show o warming for over 18 years. ~Climate Depot

icecappolardoubles1_JPGLie #4: Global warming is killing the polar ice caps!

Fact: THE ICE CAPS ARE FINE

Ice caps are not shrinking; in fact, Antarctic sea ice is expanding. ~Climate4you.com, university of Oslo Department of Geoscience

Lie #5: Global warming is causing extreme weather, including massive worldwide drought!

Fact: THE WEATHER IS NORMAL

The planet is experiencing normal variations in precipitation. ~EPA, Watts Up with That

 

Truth Zone: “Science” Facts, or Science Fiction?

Truth Zone: “Science” Facts, or Science Fiction?

keyoldO ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. ~Matthew 16:2,3

Mankind threatened by global cooling, not warming
Bob Unruh

RushGlobalWarmingObamaAs the Obama administration creates policy based on the premise that the planet is warming, more and more scientists are concluding the real danger is global cooling.
“There’s no question of will it occur … but exactly when,” said David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist and the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations.
Dilley’s conclusions in many ways echo those of former NASA scientist John L. Casey, who just last year recorded a warning on the issue.
“The U.S. under President Obama has been eager to control industry and industrial output (of carbon dioxide),” he said.

The goal has been to shut down carbon dioxide emissions.

“That has been the main theme for many of the world’s governments for three decades,” he said.

However, “manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change.”

Casey said the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes.

Right now, he said, there are a number of hints, including volcanic and earthquake activity.
hoaxglobalwarming“Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. ‘Global temperature’ does not exist.”

There is evidence, according to Marc Morano of Climate Depot, a leading expert on the topic, that the “global warming” movement was never about the science behind the issue; it was always about creating a global system of controlling energy production and consumption.

And WND reported Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has pointed out that for more than 100 years, “journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”

 

History Timeline: Media Doomsayers Flip-Flop

flip-flopchickenlittle1The London Daily Mail noted that over the last century, America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times. Each prediction warned entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions” would die.

1895

In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age.

1920s

In the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s.

1975

Then in 1975, a New York Times headline blared “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

1981

In 1981, it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

2015—Global Cooling

The term of choice later evolved to “climate change” to cover the changing predictions.

There is evidence, according to Marc Morano of Climate Depot, a leading expert on the topic, that the “global warming” movement was never about the science behind the issue; it was always about creating a global system of controlling energy production and consumption.

chickenlittle2Morano told WND that the facts don’t seem to matter to the activists.

“They have an agenda,” he said.

For example, he noted, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard once said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said, ‘We were wrong; it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

Then there was ex-Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Morano, whose coming movie, “Climate Hustle,” will address the issue, said the global warming agenda isn’t about the science.
For example, he noted, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard once said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said, ‘We were wrong; it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

Then there was ex-Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
truth-vs-liesIn May, President Obama told U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates to be prepared for a shift in military strategy that would include a fight against global warming, because weather patterns figure into trends toward violence. And in early 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry called climate change “the greatest challenge of our generation,” more so than poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, said, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.”

He’s a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling.

A year ago, WND reported scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to today’s problems, say the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”

It’s “past time” for the world to realize that and “stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat,” contended Kenneth Haapala, the executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project in Virginia.

Scandal

govwasteabounds.The holes in the theory have been documented. For example, London’s Independent newspaper declared at the turn of the millennium, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

But the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

The scientists say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mankind-threatened-by-global-cooling-not-warming/#OmJkZIosWQxPYtzW.99