Academic Corruption; How Immigration and Climate Change are Related

w-54_s-2

The Atlantic as an article titled: How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration. In the article, it highlights the same tactics used corrupt climate science are also being used to corrupt the other social sciences. Here are just a few quotes:

Flip Flopping on Critical Issues Due to Political Opportunity:

Prominent liberals…routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains.

Erasing/Re-Writing History:

In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone.

Completely Ignore the Costs, Focuses only on Political Gain:

“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.”

Eagerness to Sell-Out America and Americans for Political Gain:

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”

Claim Consensus on an Issue Where One Doesn’t Exist:

Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.

Liberal Media Attack Dogs Bully those that Dare to be Different:

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way…ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.” Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”

Simply Lie About Issues:

But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”

Researchers are Funded by Biased Liberal Sources:

Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program.

Liberal Bias and Conservative Censorship in Academia:

Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.”

Liberals Simply Promote and Support Idiotic Self-Destructive Ideas: Why Would Anyone Not Want Immigrants to Assimilate?

Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Everything is an Excuse to Redistribute Wealth: Why Work? Voting Democrat is Easier?

Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it. Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term.

Liberal Policies Hurt the Democrat Voters They Intent/Pretend to Help. 

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most.

There are plenty more examples of the corruption of academic research to deliver a predetermined liberal political objective. Here is the audio of the article. It is well worth listening to. It exposes just how unconcerned Liberals are with the corruption of science, dividing America and undermining her interests, values, and culture. Liberal Immigration and Environmental Policies are destroying the Once Great Nations of Europe. We should not allow Liberals to repeat the mistakes of Europe here in America.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.

Related Topics:

Liberals Corrupted the Media as well:

Paglia called what she said the Democratic Party had done to journalism “absolutely grotesque” and warned it would take decades to recover.

“It’s obscene,” she said. “It’s outrageous, OK? It shows that the Democrats are nothing now but words and fantasy and hallucination and Hollywood. There’s no journalism left. What’s happened to The New York Times? What’s happened to the major networks? It’s an outrage.”

“I’m a professor of media studies, in addition to a professor of humanities, OK?” she continued. “And I think it’s absolutely grotesque the way my party has destroyed journalism. Right now, it is going to take decades to recover from this atrocity that’s going on where the news media have turned themselves over to the most childish fraternity, kind of buffoonish behavior.”

Camille Paglia: Democrats in ‘nationwide orgy of rage and spite’ over Donald Trump

More From Paglia: Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence)

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Advertisements

Prager University: Climate Change Marathon

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth

Non-Hockey-Sticks-2015

Hundreds Of Scientific Papers Challenge ‘Global’ Warming

Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern “global” warming is not actually global in scale, and that today’s warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

Here, an additional 140 non-hockey stick graphs taken from papers published in 2015 and earlier have now been made available. With this latest installment, graphical temperature reconstructions challenging the conceptualization of global-scale or unprecedented modern warming are rapidly approaching 300.

Catalog of Charts: Global Warming Disputed: 300 Graphs

Read More: Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth

Related Topic: Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Independent Identity Facebooks

James-t-Hodgkinson-alexandria-shooter-ap-photo-640x480

Break-Up The Censorship Monopoly:

Just recently I wrote a post about being censored on Facebook for doing nothing more than being critical of the AGW theory. This following quote is my best guess at what got the article banned:

The more scientifically illiterate you are, the more convincing the Climate Alarmists’ arguments become. Climate Alarmists know that and that is why they usually only provide half the story at best, and as we all know, “half the truth is often twice the lie.” No matter if it is Coral Reefs, Sea Ice, Global Temperatures or other claims, the Alarmists’ arguments simply don’t hold up under even the most simple of analysis.

Here is the full article: Facebook Censorship; Congress Should Investigate Anti-Conservative Bias

Today in the news we get reports of what the left is allowed to publish uncensored and unharassed by Hatebook.

The gunman who opened fire this morning on Republican congressmen and staffers recently declared in a Facebook post that, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a Change.org petition in late-March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Hodgkinson’s Facebook page includes numerous photos of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Hodgkinson appears to have strongly supported during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. In posts last August, Hodgkinson wrote, “I want Bernie to Win the White House” and “Bernie is a Progressive, while Hillary is Republican Lite.”

Hatebook will allow leftists to spew hate and incite violence against Republicans, but it won’t allow debate critical of global warming. It is time for Congress to break up Hatebook. Hatebook should be broken apart based upon members self-identifying with the desired “identity” Facebook. Facebook should be broken into Political Facebook with Conservative and Liberal, Gender Facebook  Men and Women, Marriage Status Facebook Married and Single,  Nationality Facebook, Hobby/Special Interest Facebook, Religious Facebook, etc etc.

Each individual “Identity” Facebook would be publically traded, and run by like-minded people that share the values and beliefs of the “identity” community. No longer would Orwellian, sociopathic, leftist censors get to pick and choose what is appropriate to post across all of Facebook.  Each “Identity” Facebook would, of course, be allowed to cross communicate, but the regulation of content would no longer be centralized and run by Orwellian totalitarian misguided social justice warriors. It is time to make Facebook a vehicle to promote the 1st Amendment, not suppress it. The various “Identity” Facebooks would have to compete to get more members, and oppressed/censored members would have other Facebooks to join where they would find their views welcomed.

BTW, this call to break up Facebook is being promoted by the New York Times. They, of course, want to break- up and have the Government regulate Facebook. I promote breaking up Facebook and allowing self-governance of the separate “identity” facebooks. It is time to break the Facebook censorship monopoly. “Identity” facebooks will allow “safe spaces” for people like myself that get bullied and censored by Facebook leftists. It would also promote “diversity” of thought, allow greater “equality,” encourage “tolerance,” and end the systemic and systematic “discrimination” against groups like skeptical scientists.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The True Face of Science Denialism: NASA Geologist “Scientist” Denies 600 Million Years of Geologic History

ellen_stofan.jpg

Ellen Stofan holds master and doctorate degrees in geological sciences from Brown University in Providence, R.I., and a bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist

Fake news spread by those with a profit motive is leaving many people oblivious to the threat of climate change, says former head of US space agency.

Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
@hannahdev

Friday 9 June 2017 00.15 AEST

Americans are “under siege” from disinformation designed to confuse the public about the threat of climate change, Nasa’s former chief scientist has said.

Speaking to the Guardian, Ellen Stofan, who left the US space agency in December, said that a constant barrage of half-truths had left many Americans oblivious to the potentially dire consequences of continued carbon emissions, despite the science being unequivocal.

“We are under siege by fake information that’s being put forward by people who have a profit motive,” she said, citing oil and coal companies as culprits. “Fake news is so harmful because once people take on a concept it’s very hard to dislodge it.

During the past six months, the US science community has woken up to this threat, according to Stofan, and responded by ratcheting up efforts to communicate with the public at the grassroots level as well as in the mainstream press.

“The harder part is this active disinformation campaign,” she said before her appearance at Cheltenham Science Festival this week. “I’m always wondering if these people honestly believe the nonsense they put forward. When they say ‘It could be volcanoes’ or ‘the climate always changes’… to obfuscate and to confuse people, it frankly makes me angry.”

Stofan added that while “fake news” is frequently characterised as a problem in the right-leaning media, she saw evidence of an “erosion of people’s ability to scrutinise information” across the political spectrum. “All of us have a responsibility,” she said. “There’s this attitude of ‘I read it on the internet therefore it must be true’.”

Read more: Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist

This Climate Alarmist/Climate Activist masquerading as a Geologist and “Scientist” appears to be completely ignorant of the 600 million year geological history of the earth. Never, I repeat Never with an N, over 600 million years has CO2 ever caused catastrophic warming. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 parts per million, almost 20x the level of today, and the Earth never experienced catastrophic warming. In fact, SEA LIFE thrived during the Cambrian era when CO2 was highest. During the Triassic and Jurassic era, when CO2 was 3,000 parts per million, the largest animals to ever exist roamed the earth. The earth fell into an ice age during the Carboniferous era when CO2 was 4,000 parts per million. The basic physical properties of CO2 and the physics supporting the greenhouse gas effect simply don’t support the CAGW theory, especially when put in the context of the range of atmospheric CO2 possible on earth, ie the pure CO2 atmosphere of Venus can never happen here on earth. The unfortunate truth is that a real understanding of the CO2 molecule and greenhouse gas effect is demonstrated.

The unfortunate truth is that a real understanding of the CO2 molecule and greenhouse gas effect is demonstrated in the geological record. The marginal impact of CO2 DECREASES with each additional molecule. CO2 has a natural “off switch” and is designed to NEVER cause catastrophic warming. That is why earth’s temperatures appear to peak out at approximately 22° C regardless of the level of CO2. That is the real story, the story the climate alarmists will never explain to the public or press. Instead, they hide behind phony liberal academic degrees and titles at once prestigious scientific organizations like NASA. NASA should have all its “scientists” study this following chart and stop allowing ex-employees from further tarnishing their already greatly diminished reputation. Denying geologic and physical science and history isn’t a position NASA should be promoting.

geological

Related Topic: Click the link to read more about the GEOCARB model that supports the above graphic.

H/T Watts Up With That

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

NASA’s “Adjusted” Temperature Charts Prove CO2 Driven Warming is a Hoax

NASAp024841d.jpg

It appears that NASA, the organization that once put a man on the moon, has devolved so much that they don’t even appear to understand the meaning of the charts that they produce. The Political Correct Fever that inspired the canceling of the Space Shuttle program, and redirecting NASA’s efforts towards “Muslim outreach” and Climate Change, has exposed NASA as conspirators in the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As a refresher, the theory behind “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” or CAGW is that man produces CO2, CO2 “traps/thermalizes” outgoing infrared (IR) radiation between the wavelengths of  13 and 18 microns, the “thermalization” of those IR wavelengths results in atmospheric warming. NASA knows this, and if fact uses the Airforce’s program MODTRAN to model the atmosphere. The key point here is that it is the “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation that causes the warming, not the level of CO2. I use the term “global warming” because the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change in by thermalization, ie warming.

As with any cause and effect relationship, one needs a “differential” to measure the change in Y (Dependent Variable) CAUSED by the change in X (Independent Variable), ΔY=mX+b. CO2 has a differential over time, but at any moment in time, CO2 evenly blankets the globe. What this means is that CO2 can’t CAUSE regional differences in temperature and that its impact would be a parallel shift in the temperature graph over time. CO2 is 405 parts per million (ppm) at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, over land and over sea, it is an even blanket, and therefore can’t cause differences in one place compared to another. The following is the atmospheric CO2 graph, and here is the location to download the data. Note: This is NOAA, not NASA data and graphics.

NOAA3

No one disputes that CO2 evenly blankets the globe. No one disputes that CO2 can thermalize IR radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns. Those two facts, however, would result in parallel shifts in the temperature graph. The NASA graphics tell a different story, a story inconsistent with the underlying physics of the greenhouse gas effect and the physical properties of CO2.

NASA Charts for Land Only and Land and Sea Global Temperatures:

NOAA2aNOAA1a

Problems with the above graphics if CO2 is the CAUSE of the warming:

  1. FACT: Between 1880 and 2017 Land Temperatures increased by approximately 1.75° C, Land and Sea Temperatures increased by approximately 1.20° C. CO2 is 405 ppm over both land and sea so CO2 CANNOT explain the 0.55°. Something other than CO2 MUST be CAUSING the differential between land and sea and land only. The differential is even greater when comparing land only to sea only.
  2. FACT: Both charts “dog leg” at 1960. The slope between 1880 and 1960 is approximately 0.007° C/Year for land only and 0.005° C/Year for land and sea. The slope between 1960 and 2017 is approximately 0.028° C/Year for land only and 0.019° C/Year for land and sea. CO2 has been gradually increasing since 1880, and did not suddenly accelerate post-1960. CO2 CANNOT explain the sudden acceleration in temperatures that occurred post-1960.
  3. FACT: Land only, Land and Sea and Sea only temperature charts all have different slopes. Constant CO2, and a constant rate of change in CO2 CANNOT explain a difference in slope between those three charts. Constants CANNOT CAUSE a differential, that is why they are called CONSTANTS.

The Physical Properties of CO2 don’t support NASA’s Charts or the CAGW Theory:

co2_modtrans_img1

CO2 doesn’t CAUSE warming, CO2’s reaction with IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns CAUSES the warming. The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 and the resulting “Net Downward Forcing (w/m^2)” is the important metric, not CO2 concentrations in ppm. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are near linear over time, the “Net Downward Forcing” of CO2 is logarithmic (see chart above).

The Problems that creates for NASA and the CAGW Alarmists:

  1. Extrapolating the atmospheric CO2 chart one finds CO2 to have been about 240 ppm in 1880. NOAA, however, states that the pre-industrial level was 275 ppm. Using 275 ppm, Net Downward Forcing of CO2 increased from 257.5 w/m^2 at 275 ppm to about 258.5 w/m^2 at the 1960 level of 315 ppm. An increase in 40 ppm resulted in a net increase in downward forcing of 1 w/m^2. Depending on the chart, temperatures either increased approximately 0.04° C or 0.05° C over that time period. Note: if pre-industrial CO2 was 240 ppm as the extrapolation suggests, the case is even worse for the climate alarmists because the w/m^2 would be much greater for the slight temperature change of 0.04° C or 0.05° C.
  2. In 1960, CO2 was 315 ppm, and depending on the chart temperatures increased between 1.1° C or 1.6° C by 2017. While the temperature increase between 1960 and 2017 was approximately 4x the increase between 1880 and 1960, the increase in w/m^ was about equal, and the marginal impact of any additional CO2 is rapidly DECLINING.
  3. The NASA temperature charts post-1960 are near linear, and cannot be explained by the diminishing marginal w/m^2 that define the physical properties of CO2. If CO2 is driving temperature, the temperature chart slope wouldn’t be linear, the slope would gradually falling towards zero, just like the CO2 w/m^2 graph does.
  4. In reality, the temperature charts post-1960 appear to be accelerating (slope steepening) and are certainly accelerating post-1880. There is nothing in the physical nature of CO2 that can explain accelerating marginal temperatures with equal increases in w/m^2. The molecular/quantum physics related to the CO2 molecule are FIXED. Real sciences don’t deny the laws of quantum physics to make their case.
  5. Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in the labs of NASA, NASA’s own research and publications debunk the CAGW theory.

Please like, share, comment and subscribe.

President Obama Mis-Directed Billions of Tax Dollars Away from Real Energy Solutions

renewable-green-energy-solyndra-green-obama-fraud-politics-13307715941

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.

The hefty $2.2 billion price tag is actually an improvement over initial estimates, which found the government was poised to face $4 billion in losses from the loan guarantees. But as the projects have come to fruition, they’ve performed better, leaving taxpayers with a shrinking — though still sizable — liability.

Read More: Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole

Those numbers don’t include the opportunity costs of killing job producing projects like the Keystone Pipeline and supporting job-killing EPA regulations intended to kill the coal industry. They don’t include the real cost of every American having to pay higher priced for their energy.

President Obama’s main focus was on energy sources that have little to no chance of ever really contributing to the global energy demand. Wind and Solar are way too expensive, unreliable, inefficient, and have way too low energy density. As I like to say, “you will never fly a jet using wind power, and you will never power your home at night using solar power.” For all of 2016 non-hydro renewable energy accounted for 9.2% of all US energy production, and almost all of that production required a coal or natural gas powered plant as a back-up.

According to data released on Aug. 24 by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), renewable energy in the U.S. through the first half of 2016, including hydro-electric power, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar (including distributed solar), provided 16.9 percent of electricity generation. In all of 2015, that number was 13.7 percent. Non-hydro renewable energy was 9.2 percent of U.S. electric generation through the first half of 2016. For all of 2015 it was 7.6 percent.

Wind and solar require reinventing the wheel, rebuilding the electrical grid and infrastructure, are highly speculative, and simply don’t have the physics or economics backing them…ever. Solutions like the Fischer-Tropsch Process are commercially viable proven solutions and produce “drop-in” fuels. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel and make major changes to the existing infrastructure, all you do is build the plant. Everything works within the existing system.

There is also promising solutions like the one developed by a now bankrupt company named KiOR. It was Silicon Valley’s major attempt at producing a renewable fuel. Countless certain to eventually fail wind and solar projects were funded, yet President Obama let KiOR, with its extremely promising technology, die. Why? I can only speculate that it was because it wasn’t focused on the PC solution of wind and solar, and continued to support the dreaded internal combustion engine.

Read More: Vinod Khosla’s Open Letter to 60 Minutes and CBS

Over the last 8 years, had the Nation’s Energy Policy focused on real commercially viable solutions like the Fischer-Tropsch, built pipelines like the Keystone, embraced fracking, coal, and petroleum, and fully funded promising speculative technology like KiOR’s that worked well withing the existing infrastructure, it is highly likely America would be totally energy independent today. Instead, we are stuck with environmentally unfriendly, uneconomical eyesores killing birds and destroying sensitive desert habitats. It’s time we get serious about solving our energy problem, and wind and solar are more an obstacle than an assistance.

Related Topic: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Related Topic: Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally

clip_image0025

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.