Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli Must Investigate Possible Fraud In Global Warming Grants
There has been considerable controversy concerning investigations of possible fraud by academic individuals receiving government grants involving the subject of global warming.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Continuing Fraud of Climate Change
In its latest issue (11/29/10), Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Low-Octane Climate Talks". It reports on a two- week United Nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico. C&EN says expectations for the Cancun meeting are restrained, which is why it is reported as "Low-Octane".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
