Wild Horses Misinformation and Bad Science: Corrupt Government Agency and Non-Profits ~ Photojournalist ~ Journalist

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time

Why do we take issue at the lack of good science data with what is called today, Pesticide PZP? Because subjectivity and science remain two separate situations. The dynamics of each very different. Many of us find Pesticide PZP nothing more than subjective rhetoric – the results on our Public Lands of this endeavor remains quite negative, with no good potential results foreseen in the future. Wild Horses are going extinct! False science, misinformation, ignoring of Ecological demands, and corruption the reasons why . . .

The wild horses on America’s Public Lands is falling victim to what many of us simply refer to as bad, and incompetent white-paper gibberish. As history shows us time and again, government agencies seem to attract this type of research, calls it science, and as history shows us, time after time, until we see the outstanding negative results, in this case a species going extinct, do we finally realize the mistake.

But only over time is the burden of responsibility taken to task, the fingers point to those who cannot defend themselves, and these elements of destruction, these non-profits and BLM who promote this Pesticide PZP scam, simply move-on to other schemes and scams to obtain taxpayer money differently, is all . . .

Well, as taxpayers and American’s it is time for all of us to Stand Up and say no to any further Pesticide PZP use —

Spotted Owls in the Cascades

For explanation reasons, I am using the Spotted Owl within the Nooksack River watershed, as well as the Skagit River Valley, both in the Cascade Mountains. It shows us, overtime, the dynamic also involved within the wild horses, even though separate ecological zones, separate species for sure, yet similar in population encounter and census.

The biology, when all the variables considered, show situations that remain overlooked, or even ignored, by Pesticide PZP research. Many define, categorically, Pesticide PZP as questionable subjective reasoning of combined-information only, merely passed-off as science –

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ― Albert Einstein

Many of us accept this fact of facts, as there simply exists too many variables left unexplored from the Pesticide PZP data gathering, to be any type of acceptable science what so ever. Way too many significant data situations ignored or even not thought about what so ever, which would show beyond a doubt Pesticide PZP, a questionable situation at best, and non-useful. The reasoning why significant variables left unexplored? Well, let’s take a look at some of the more obvious, and viability of our wildlife in general.

A census of the Spotted Owl may show twenty-five owls exist, but perhaps only seven are of a reproductive age, and only five sexually active. The outcome of this, within a good biology context, would likely be five-owls, not twenty-five. To assimilate across the board a 20% to 38% increase, as they do with wild horses, is simply bad management, untruthful, and no good-science or biology would back up such claims what so ever – as variables do exist on this planet, always.

When we refuse to consider significant variables, that do exist and apparent should not be ignored, then we have to question the supposed science involved. On the same scale of research, if we ignore the habitats, or Ecological Zones that exist, deduction through subjectivity only, and as if Pesticide PZP unharmful within any circumstance – but never explored, through due diligence and good data gathering, we never find out if harmful or not in Ecological Zones of any type. . . Used on something like Wild Horses, we become very concerned at this monumental error in judgement, that certainly lacks scientific responsibility, and one can also attest, irresponsible within an ethical or humane context as well . . . – John Cox, The Cascades

Source: Wild Horses Misinformation and Bad Science: Corrupt Government Agency and Non-Profits

Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers’ | The Daily Caller

 

Andrew Follett
Energy and Science Reporter

Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.

“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.

Grijalv accused the scientists of “lying to children about the world we live in to further corporate polluter profits” and said that doing so was “cruel.” Johnson stated that the scientists had sent “scientifically inaccurate materials on climate change to public school teachers across the country” at the behest of ominous right wing donors and the Charles and David Koch brothers.

The best way to get adults to act like environmentalists is by brainwashing their children, according to research published by Oregon State University. Talking to kids about global warming caused their parents to use less energy and act more like environmentalists. The research was run on was run on 30 Girl Scout troops in northern California and had a “lasting impact on family energy consumption” for at least eight months after the end of the program.

Based on the study’s success, the researchers are now disseminating the curriculum to Girl Scout leaders around the country and attempting to adapt it to other groups of kids, including schools and youth-focused organizations such as 4-H with the help of other universities, such as Stanford. The research was financially supported by government grants.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Source: Dems Tell Teachers To Trash Global Warming ‘Denier’ Books | The Daily Caller

Scientists march to support global-warming censorship: the New Ridiculous

Scientists march to support global-warming censorship: the New Ridiculous

A primary principle of fake news: “scientists agree”

by Jon Rappoport

January 29, 2017

USA Today has the story (1/26): “American scientists worried about climate change and skeptical of President Donald Trump are planning a protest march in Washington, D.C.”

“March organizers, on the event’s website, said it serves as ‘a starting point to take a stand for science in politics’.”

“…The group’s mission statement is set to come out on Monday.”

“‘There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives’, the statement said. ‘The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action…’”

Well, all right, that’s that. No alternatives.

Debate would be subversive.

Official science is the only science.

But oops; all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government and media portals.

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

The science is only settled in government/media circles, where leaders have climbed on board the Globalist plan to undermine economies all over the world by grossly lowering energy production, as a way to “reduce warming.”

One of the major warming hustlers is, of course, Al Gore. Every movement needs such men.

Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):

In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM and Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.

The man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.

Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”

Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”

This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.

Slavery imposed through energy.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


I’ll for now conclude with this:

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read: “US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.” (An earlier article of mine on it here.)

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”

“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:

“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”

That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. Why not? It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.

Actually, later in the Times article, “Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed the rise wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.

But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy—but look, people make mistakes. However, they mean well. They really do. And that’s what counts.

THEY’RE NOT USING A BOGUS WARMING HYPOTHESIS TO TORPEDO AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, AS PART OF A GLOBALIST MACHINATION OF CONTROL. THEY DON’T WANT TO DECIMATE THE ECONOMY AND REDUCE US TO A HELPLESS STATE OF POVERTY.

They would never do that.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Source: Scientists march to support global-warming censorship: the New Ridiculous ‹ Jon Rappoport’s Blog ‹ Reader — WordPress.com

One Way To Cut The Government Fat

In July, Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) took on the little known radical environmentalist scam known as “sue and settle” where a green group acting in cahoots with the EPA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sues the Agency demanding that they apply the law in a new, expanded way that increases the agency’s jurisdiction.

Click The Link For The Rest Of The Story …

Time For Environmental Groups To Spend Their Money, Not Mine.