Posts Made By: Robert Provin

Dave Snope said:

And a Planned Parenthood visit 1.2 miles from GT Law School to get it prescribed costs $155.

But I'm sure that the facts won't phase her one bit. She's an activist and an idealogue. It's her far-left mission that counts, not whether women actually need her "help".

(CNSNews.com) – Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for just $9.

Target advertises the $9-per-month birth control pills on its website, and CNSNews.com confirmed and reconfirmed that the $9 pills were in fact available at the Target near Georgetown Law.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,� Fluke testified before Pelosi’s panel.

“For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,� Fluke testified. “Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.�

“Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer,� Fluke testified. “Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice. You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true.�

On Tuesday, Fluke spoke at an event at the U.S. Capitol in celebration of women’s history month. After the event, CNSNews.com asked Fluke: “Were you aware of the Target store that’s 3 miles from Georgetown Law that sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for $9 a month without insurance coverage? Were you aware of that?�

Dave Snope said:

IPCC Expert Reviewer and climate scientist Dr. Vincent Gray writes today:


I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.

How have they got away with it?

Attempts to "simulate" their unreliable and manipulated past climate "data" have been failures, yet are claimed as successes, But even if the "data" were genuine and the simulation successful it does not prove anything. Correlation, however convincing is not evidence of causation. The only way you can demonstrate the success of any theory is successful prediction of future climate over the whole range it is intended to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This has already been done with Newton's Laws of motion and Darwin's theories of evolution. It has not been done with the "global warming" theory. There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event. They do not even pretend they can do it, as they only provide "projections" from their models, not "predictions": .

How have they persuaded us that they are able to predict future climate?

They operate a system called "attribution". This is a combination of "simulation" (correlation), and "assessment" by "experts". The "experts" are all paid to provide the models that they are assessing. These assessments are therefore an elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest.

They apply a whole series of "likelihoods" to each "assessment" and apply a fake "statistical significance" which, unlike those normally applied to genuine science, have no background of actual experimental observations.

I attach the official list of instructions on how to perpetrate this elaborate fraud on the international community, from the Fourth IPCC Report.

Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035



http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-287.html

Doug Matulis said:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/?intcmp=features

Modern science is becoming more and more like comedic parody. Frankly, the Bible is more believeable than the story tales science dreams up.

Dave Snope said:

For those that haven't been paying attention, here's another example of how you get unstoppable global warming. It works the same way in temperature record data records from all over the world. This time the data is from the Netherlands. The technique is always the same, whether it be Australian data, USA data, EUR data, Greenland data, doesn't matter. They take the original temperature data (blue line), which shows what everybody experienced, that it was warm during the 30's - 40's, and cold during the 60's - 70's, then you apply a "homogenizing factor", a simple step function that reduces the earlier temperatures by 1 degree K, and voila, you have unprecedented global warming. You publish the red line. There's usually some urban heat island effect, too, that increases the later century slope but the AGW scientists deny it exists.

If anybody complains about the adjustments, they are bullied and shot down as "unsophisticated". Because, you know, you have to be one of the IPCC principal authors to comprehend high school math.

Now of course this is just the temperature record manipulations, but they are equally unethical and activist with the long-term temperature reconstructions with proxy data.



Netherlands study by Frank Lausner

Doug Matulis said:

For a refresher:

-There is no such thing as human caused global warming
-The climate is always changing, always has and always will.
-First grade science fact: The biggest influence on earth's climate is the SUN not the SUV

Doug Matulis said:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/29/4000-years-ago-climate-change-caused-massive-civilization-collapse/

They must of had a lot of suv's, beans, factories and incandesent lightbulbs back then?!!
To bad they didn't have Al Gore and the liberals to save them.

For a refresher:

-There is no such thing as human caused global warming
-The climate is always changing, always has and always will.
-First grade science fact: The biggest influence on earth's climate is the SUN not the SUV

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind
They just can't deny the evidence any longer...

Alan French said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307

Dave Snope said:

Warming causes CO2. Duh!

How many of these papers does it take to get people to pay attention to science and stop believing the activits?

------------------------------------

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html