Democracy in Action | Climate Nonconformist

The convoy is circling a petition, demanding a double-dissolution election. It’s fair enough, considering the prime minister retained power on a lie and is now forcing a carbon tax on an electorate who do not want it. While no part of the constitution prevents a PM from lying to the country (though there is a “vibe”), given the extent of this one, I’d say we apply “the law of bloody common sense”.

Sediment at the bottom of Yellowstone National Park lakes a window on ancient world

Some believe that Yellowstone National Park could lose its forests in the next 50 years, but Cathy Whitlock, an MSU earth sciences professor, thinks otherwise.

"We're more conservative," she said. "Yellowstone is a very resilient ecosystem. It's going to respond to climate change, but we're not going to lose the forests we know and love in Yellowstone."

C3: Latest EU Satellite Sea Level Data Confirms Very Slight Increase: By 2100 Seas Will Rise By Only 3.4 Inches

Despite the claims of a handful of crank scientists, the Washington Post, and a few big government tax and spend Republicans (Romney & Huntsman), the predicted dangerous sea level increase from human-caused global warming has not taken place. In reality, the actual sea level has recently declined, which may be connected to the fact that global temperatures have been declining since 2003.

Pal Review in Climate Science | The SPPI Blog

The accompanying chart “Spurious Science” lists ten fields of science. Notably absent is a category for “Climate Science.” The examples of scientific misconduct mentioned in this article are mirrored in the revelations of the 2009 “climategate” scandal. Trusted scientific journals were shown to be actively suppressing scientific papers not in accord with the views of a small cabal of think-alike editors. Trusted scientific societies were shown to be mouthpieces for their leadership, and espousing positions not reflecting the wider views of their members. Manmade climate change related to fossil fuel usage was the official leadership view. Peer review became known as “pal review.” Academic success and grant funding came to those claiming to establish this link; little funding and derision was the fate of those wishing to explore alternate hypotheses.