Another Fake Climate Scientist Exposed: Willie Soon

Thanks to Chris Hayes in a segment on his  Monday might 'All In' for exposing yet another paid hack climate denier posing as a climate scientist and "astrophysicist". This would be none other than Willie Soon, whose dubious history regarding climate science precedes him.  This concerned a spurious paper in a joint 2003 effort by Soon and Sallie Baliunas with a graphic misuse of statistics. Reference to it may be found at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF

The methodology used by Soon and Baliunas was terrible, and any proper referee versed at all in statistics would've tossed most of their analyses out in a heartbeat. Especially their deliberate  use of 50-year data periods, increments when the IPCC scientists had already disclosed anthropogenic warming appears at 30 -year levels. In effect, Baliunas and Soon employed what we call a 'selective effects filter' to cull the data they preferred not to have to deal with. As serious climate critics pointed out in the aftermath of the paper, by using much wider 50 year periods one essentially whitewashes the signal right out of the data.

Sadly, it seems Soon hasn't learned his climate lessons. But mayhap he's being paid too much as a shill for the denial lobby to do so. Hayes led off the segment with a pie chart showing 97 percent of published climate papers agree global warming is happening and humans are the primary cause. This elicits the question: 'Who makes up the other 3 percent?'

Hayes' immediate response was that these minority climate change deniers (I disdain misuse of the word 'skeptics' as Chris does) are not all they appear That is, objective researchers in pursuit of scientific truth. Such is the case with Dr. Willie Soon, ostensibly based at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, until one digs beneath the surface. (And btw, when one is praised by the most infamous climate change denier - James Inhofe - one knows he's hit new lows and is really a bottom feeder scientifically.)

Hayes then went on to cite the truth about Soon using a clip and excerpt from the New York Times. e.g.

"Though often described on conservative news programs as a 'Harvard astrophysicist', Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard."

More technically, Soon is actually a part-time employee of the Smithsonian which jointly runs  the Center along with Harvard. More to the point, Soon is only there because he brings in his own funding. What exactly this translates into wasn't known until Greenpeace submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for Soon's grant correspondence. What they found also appeared in the Times' piece on 'Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0)':

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers."

Can anyone say 'paid whore' for the fossil fuelers? I can!   Especially as Soon, according to the Times:

described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

So can Hayes. As he put it:

"There are now one point two million more reasons to doubt his work."

Which, let's face it, would already be doubt worthy given how he earlier played with statistics to wash out the actual global warming signal from his paper.

Maybe Soon needs to very soon click on the link below to see the more rapid melting of ice caps and glaciers, which we're actually seeing in real time, showing climate change-global warming is happening as I write:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899

The preceding ought to get even the most blinkered global warming denier's attention, as well as http://www.salon.com/2015/02/26/scientists_stick_it_to_climate_deniers_study_provides_direct_evidence_that_human_activity_is_causing_global_warming/

See also:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

And more documents on Soon's deplorable brand of science can be found here:

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/willie-soon-harvard-smithsonian-documents-reveal-southern-company-scandal

Yes! A 4-Year College Degree Should Be Required of Presidents!

The topic for discussion at the end of Chris Hayes' 'All In' last night was whether or not Presidents - and hence Presidential candidates  - ought to have 4-year college degrees. Hayes played some clips from the usual clowns on 'Fox n' Friends' that rejected the idea as "typical liberal elitism"  and one of the Fox dunderheads actually cited "Jesse Ventura, Barbara Streisand, Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs" as not having 4-year college degrees.

Yeah, but none of those luminaries or celebs will ever have their hands on the nuclear football! Sorry, but call me a "liberal elitist" - I want  a person to at least have that qualification before assuming the highest office in the land.

The Fox clowns also cited the fact that "31 million Americans left college before getting their degree" - a point Hayes also reinforced while playing Devil's advocate. But again, none of those 31 million would be contending for the highest office in the land anyway. So the point is irrelevant.

One of the other guests acknowledged that the issue probably comes to down to whether you want a "President you can have a beer with" or a "President who knows a thing or two about a thing or two". Well, since neither I (or anyone else) would ever have a chance of having a beer with any Prez, it's immaterial - hence a foolish barometer by which to judge Presidential caliber. About as foolish as using John Stewart as a medium to get your political information. (About which I will have more to say in a coming post).

I'd like to refer once more to the take ('The Myth of Higher Education') offered by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel.  As he writes:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

This is totally germane to any person who aspires to the Presidency. Especially the last two sentences on contributing to a better understanding of language and culture, and expanding horizons while replacing faith and belief with reason and logic. These are exactly the ideals or ideal attributes which the citizen ought to demand in his President. (Of course, a President could still turn into an illogical dummy or ....more commonly.....might be known to be such before election, as Dumbya Bush was in 2000. But that's on a Supreme Court that shoehorned him into office, as well as his then FLA governor brother (Jeb), who with his Secretary of State put tens of thousands of African -Americans on felons' rolls so they couldn't vote).

Chris Hayes also raised the point that Scott Walker, for example, had already finished 3 1/2 years at Marquette University - a "fine private school" (to use Chris' parlance)  just like Loyola which I attended for two years before moving on to Univ. of South Florida where I could specialize in astronomy and astrophysics. Chris, again as Devil's advocate, asked why that can't be enough.

Well, here's the deal, almost getting a degree, irrespective of university, isn't the same as actually getting it!  One has to carefully plan and apportion courses - required and electives- semester by semester, with the credit hours needed, and which are specifically demanded by the particular department. This is not that easy and often courses or credit hours can come up short - showing poor oversight or lack of planning. But one of the traits we want in Presidents is precisely attention to detail when a particular objective is in sight and also competent planning toward that end.

Scott Walker's failure to get his degree - never mind his excuse of going to "work in Chicago"-  still doesn't let him off the hook. And to that end, if he wants to remain Governor of Wisconsin, fine (though I do object to his right wing politics) but not to become President. Scott's three and a half years and lack of finishing is ok for the state job, but not getting near to the nuclear football -with the ability to launch nuclear missiles, at Russia say.

I want a person who's gone the whole way and finished what he started, demonstrating foresight and planning capabilities. The degree doesn't have to be from Harvard or the Ivies but it ought to be from a real, certified school - preferably not an online school.  (But GRE scores can always be required from  the latter types to validate quality.)

Chris asked if this should be a "deal breaker" and in my mind, yes it should. All other things being equal - and hey, if we suspect they aren't - we can always demand to see the potential President's GRE scores in history and political science!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/26/the_rights_fear_of_education_what_i_learned_as_a_former_conservative_military_man/

Keystone Stopped For Now - But Why Are So Many Dumb Americans For It?

"Every dollar that we spend today in developing and using more fossil fuels, is another dollar spent in digging the graves of our grandchildren. I don't want to dig that grave anymore" - Sen. Tom Harkin, on the Senate floor in debate over the Keystone XL pipeline

As the news was revealed recently  that the Keystone XL pipeline approval fell one vote short, one wonders just how much longer it will be before this Canadian abomination materializes. How many Dems will hold out before turning whore, and how long can Obama sustain a spine and use veto power - especially come January? These are questions that keep me up at night, and should also keep you up too,  given how the approval of this monstrosity would allow likely deposition -via spills- of some of the most polluted effluent as well as sky high CO2 emissions. If you think the emergency snow event in Buffalo has been a disaster, wait until even bigger and more prolonged polar vortices are formed (as a result of global warming), and the icy air encounters warm lakes!

What is even more incredible to me is how the Democrats could have wasted so much precious lame duck time dealing with this issue (all to try to secure the Senate seat of Mary Landrieu - which is hopeless, imho) when they could have instead been approving Loretta Lynch, Obama's choice for Attorney General. Do they really believe her chances will be better when the Reepos have a 54 vote majority? As Rachel Maddow put it, she'd like to know what they're smoking. I would too, since it sounds a lot more powerful than what's on offer her in Colorado.

Back to the Keystone: Another gripe I have is how many Americans have consumed the bullshit that this pipeline will actually provide any benefit. According to current polls, cited on Chris Hayes' 'All In', some 59 percent of Americans (the 'Dumbo' brigade)  approve of the Keystone XL, and only 31% are against it. Which means the majority have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

These bozos have no clue, not one,  that virtually no benefits redound to our nation's favor- and the few paltry benefits that do, are grossly exaggerated. The pipeline is essentially Trans Canada's and to be put in using OUR land (which will also be at dire risk for spills) and piped to the Gulf where it will be offloaded to tankers and sold ELSE WHERE - not here in the U.S. Most likely to places like China and India. Hence, the crappola that it "lowers energy costs" and "promotes energy independence" is blatant bull pockey. Only a halfwit or ignoramus would buy that! So, it looks like 59% of 'Muricans are halfwits or ignoramuses.

What about the jobs hype? As reported by Chris Hayes, a State Dept. review showed that nearly all the projected jobs (maximum 42,100 or barely enough to satisfy the needs of a town like Pueblo, CO) nearly all would fill only one position for ONE year. In other words, they'd be gone, as in vamonosed at the end of a year. Big deal, all temp jobs! A grand total of 35 permanent employees would be needed once  the pipeline commences service. This is about half the staff needed for your average mid-level department store. Yeah, the pay will be much better, but the health costs will also be a lot higher - and one wonders if that pay will cover all the pancreatic and liver cancers when they appear.

The hype that costs will go down is also bullshit. A study out of Cornell, cited by Hayes, shows that consumers in the Midwest alone could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel if the Keystone is approved.

Obama last week hit the nail on the head when he stated:

"Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability for Canada to pump their oil and send it through our land, down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."

So, in non-euphemistic terms, one is led to ask why so many Americans (the 59 % for) are willing to bend over and allow their nation to be so egregiously used.  Do they really want our country to be reduced to being a "bitch" for the Canadians? On the future promise of thirty five permanent jobs? Come on! Seems that they do! I can understand the Repukes' stand on this - but 59 percent of the people? Give me a freaking break! And as Chris noted, the biggest beneficiaries of the pipeline would be the fossil fuel companies who are increasingly spooked by plummeting oil prices. Thus, it's evident the approval of Keystone assures them of a way to jack the costs up again, and when dumbo 'Muricans howl it will be too late.

Idiot John Boehner, of course, has warned Obama not to use his veto against it, which is exactly why he must.

Boehner bloviated in a recent appearance aired on Hayes' show:

"A pipeline veto would send the signal that this President has no interest in listening to the American people. Vetoing an overwhelming popular bill would be a clear indication that he doesn't care about the American people's priorities. It would be the equivalent of calling the American people 'stupid'"

Sorry to have to bust your nuts, Johnno, but the American people in favor of it ARE stupid! If they haven't read about the consequences, and don't know enough of who is really benefiting, then why the hell should Obama follow the 'stupid' sector and allow this nutso pipeline to pass?

We the opponents, then, are the ones that need to be listened to, since we know  - based on all the facts available- that it is sheer madness to assume the development of new sources of carbon-intensive tar sands oil. This is when we know we can only burn about one fifth of all the known reserves of existing sources and hope to keep the planet from frying in the runaway greenhouse..

Flight MH370 Conspiracy Theories - Insults to Human Intelligence!

Malaysian Flight MH370 has now been missing for over 2 weeks, and while sober heads and high technology - including satellite and plane capabilities we never knew existed - are finally localizing its probable whereabouts, oddballs are allowing their speculations to run riot. These wild brain eruptions are primarily invested in confecting conspiracy "theories" (I hesitate to even dignify them with the term), that amount to basic insults to human intelligence.

Some were on display last night on Chris Hayes' 'All In'   and ran the gamut from the plane encountering a black hole, to an alien abduction, to an event similar to that presented in one 1960s Twilight Zone episode where an airliner transits through a temporal barrier back to 70 million years ago.

Let's go through each of these in turn:

Black Hole:

Since a stellar black hole would consume the Earth, the other planets too, the only other alternative would be a "mini-black hole".  According to spaceanswers.com,
http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/3021/what-is-a-mini-black-hole/

These are:

Black holes with masses less than their heavyweight relatives – the standard and supermassive black holes – and weighing in at less than three solar masses are dubbed mini black holes, formed in the pressure of interstellar clouds. Because they are so small, they also have a little bit of difficulty when it comes to forming on their own. Low mass also means low gravity and this directly implies that these pint-sized objects cannot completely collapse in on themselves. In comparison, black holes of more than three times the Sun’s mass are made when a star reaches the end of its life and gets crushed under its own gravity -.


Since they cannot completely collapse in on themselves, they cannot approach the steep gravitational wells of their stellar cousins.  This means the damage they can inflict is limited. However, it is inconceivable such an object could form within the Earth's atmosphere (or even outside it then enter it) - selectively take out a jetliner, and leave anything and everything else. Apart from that,  no one has found actual observational evidence they even exist, despite looking for them since Stephen Hawking proposed them - in the form of quantum-scale, 'evaporating' black holes -  several decades ago.


Alien Abduction:

 

This is perhaps the most absurd one of all. The proposal: a large extraterrestrial craft, perhaps hundreds of meters in diameter, selectively pinpointed this particular airliner at just the exact time after the co-pilot signed off with "All right, good night!" and the entire jet was 'abducted' ("transported" by energy beam aboard the craft) and taken.....who knows where? Tau Ceti? Zeta Reticuli? We don't know because the bozos that dreamed this one up won't say.  Why this abduction?  We aren't told but we are informed that "Hey, everything is possible!" 

 

Actually, no! That is the standard cop out, but merely exploits our current absence of evidence.

 

 

The 'Twilight Zone' Episode Analogy:

 

'The Odyssey of Flight 33'   first aired on February 24,  1961. It opens with the plane en route-  over the Atlantic - to New York,  after leaving London on what first appears to be a routine flight. Suddenly, however, the plane's speed increases to over 3,000 knots (3,450  mph). Neither the captain or crew can explain what transpired, but as they approach New York City it becomes obvious: they are staring down at living dinosaurs, basically seeing the Earth as it would have been 70 million years ago.

 

The captain realizes he can't land:  How would they survive in such a world? So he and the flight navigator attempt to bring the plane back  to where they caught the mysterious tailwind that brought them back in time. In their next effort, a similar acceleration occurs and they again approach NYC, this time looking down to see the 1939 World's Fair. Again, the time is out of synch....so they've no choice but to try again....

 

Apart from the fact that no consistent theory or even hypothesis exists that could indicate how a plane could cross a temporal barrier, we can only surmise the sheer mystery that initially surrounded MH370 may have led some people to grab at anything- even this wild conjecture.

 

The Diversion to Pakistan Conspiracy:

 

Chris Hayes displayed a segment of this one (originally presented on FOX, by Sean Hannity), which is not only ridiculous but odious since it can be exploited for the purpose of political attacks. According to the walking bobble heads interviewed by Hannity - including one retired general, if you can believe it  - MH370 was hijacked then flown to Pakistan, where it is now being "weaponized" to use in some future 9/11 -style attack, perhaps on Israel. No remote mention that any such flight path over land would have been immediately picked up by Indian radar, and certainly by U.S. radar operating from Afghanistan (e.g. at Bagram AFB).

 

Why the eruption of such nonsensical conspiracy conjectures? Because, as Hayes pointed out, there remains a huge chasm between the demand for news on the flight, and the supply of actual facts, evidence and verifiable information.

 

We now, at least, have an idea - thanks to high resolution satellite imagery - of where the 777 might have ended up, literally at the 'ends of the Earth' some 1,100 miles from Perth, Australia, and between latitude 40 S and 50S where strong ocean currents dominate and within a thousand miles of the Antarctic. Why it may have ended up here we've no idea.

 

Until more hard information is forthcoming it's best to rein in imaginations, or speculations, so they don't run wild. The families are distressed enough without being possibly exposed to some of this nonsense.