Sierra Club tells Obama to abandon natural gas — after taking $26 million from the nat gas industry | JunkScience.com
Last year, the Sierra Club admitted that the natural gas industry paid it $26 million to attack the coal industry.Tasmania - Record low temperature in Liawenee
At 6.41am this morning, the mercury hit a record low of -12.2 (C) degrees (10F), beating the previous July record low of -11.1 degrees.THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Can Environmentalists Think? The Keystone XL pipeline IQ test for greens
Pipelines account for about half as much spillage as railways on a gallon-per-mile basis. Pipelines also tend not to go straight through exposed population centers like Lac-Mégantic. Nobody suggests that pipelines are perfectly reliable or safe, but what is? To think is to weigh alternatives. The habit of too many environmentalists is to evade them.As The Earth Cools, Obama's Still Distracted By A Fraudulent Warming Narrative - Forbes
Perhaps this explains why the environmental movement has excelled ideologically and failed politically.
There is nothing like watching a carbon based life form spouting about “carbon pollution,” and emitting 1000 parts per million of carbon dioxide gas in doing so, which is what Obama meant by “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide as well is a natural substance essential to all life on the planet. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes plants to grow faster, including the food that feeds us and all other animal life. Calling it pollution is nonsense as a matter of science, and should be disqualifying for public officials.Claim: Coal pollution cuts lifespans in north China by 5.5 years | JunkScience.com
This is junk science because…
… this is an “ecologic” type study, in which the researchers have no idea how much air pollution anyone in the studied populations inhaled. They also have no information on the myriad factors that could explain the reported differences in mortality. In the end,m they cannot conclude that air pollution was a factor in anyone’s death.
Moreover, heavy smoking is thought to reduce life expectancy by about 6+ or so years and heavy smokers inhale thousands of time more “air pollution” than non-smokers. Therefore, it is not credible to claim that air pollution reduces life expectancy by 5+ years.