science

The Cost of Telling Climate Truths

September 9, 2019 by GregC

Listen to “The Cost of Telling Climate Truths” on Spreaker.

For many years, Dr. Tim Ball has joined us to explain climate science, how the climate is changing, and how those changes differ drastically from with the United Nations, politicians and the media insist are the facts about climate change.

In addition to interviews, Dr. Ball also makes presentations confronting the conventional wisdom among scientists. But instead of responding with a robust debate, the climate change advocates instead ridicule Dr. Ball and they sue him – a lot.

Dr. Ball, who taught climatology at the University of Winnipeg, was the target of multiple lawsuits known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits. Every contested case against him has been dismissed, with one still pending. And they get dismissed because the plaintiffs refuse to engage Dr. Ball on the scientific merits. But standing up for himself in court has cost Dr. Ball $800,000.

In this podcast, Ball explains the real reason is is sued for defamation. He says it’s because he has the gall to confront a movement that refuses to tolerate any dissension.

“What people should be worried about is the increasing use of the law to silence people,” said Dr. Ball.

Listen to the full podcast, as Dr. Ball explains why the “scientific consensus” is bogus, why climate scientists often stay silent out fear of reprisal, and the ones who do look at the evidence are appalled at what has been allowed to pass for concrete science.

March for Life: Pro-Life Activists Declare Science on Their Side

January 18, 2019 by GregC

Listen to “March for Life: Pro-Life Activists Declare Science on Their Side” on Spreaker.

The 46th annual March for Life unfolded Friday in Washington, with tens of thousands of pro-life activists demanding an end to legalized abortion in the United States and the pro-life movement examining the political landscape with a Congress that is once again divided.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Each year since, pro-life demonstrators have flocked to Washington demand constitutional protections for unborn lives.

This year, the theme of the march is “Pro-Life is Pro-Science: Unique from Day One.” While liberals like to describe themselves as the party of science, Susan B. Anthony List Vice President of Communications Mallory Quigley says the facts are clear on when life begins and her side is right.

“From the moment of sperm-egg fusion and those cells begin to divide that we have a person there. It’s a very small one but it’s a person nonetheless and (the) DNA is separate from his or her mom. The baby can have a separate blood type. If it’s a little boy, it’s a completely separate gender.

“So the unborn child is completely different from your appendix that’s rupturing that needs to be removed. It’s a separate person that just needs time, nourishment, and a safe place to grow. That’s just a scientific reality,” said Quigley.

Pro-choice activists have a different standard for when life begins. Most will point to the moment of birth, but pro-choice groups have also backed legislation punishing criminals for harming an unborn child when the mother is attacked.

Quigley says that disconnect forces the pro-choice movement into a decidedly unscientific position: that the unborn child is a life only if it is wanted by his or her mother.

“Wantedness is the determining factor for the abortion lobby,” said Quigley.

But sometimes is goes even farther. Quigley cited a recent New York Times story revealing that Planned Parenthood pressures its own employees to abort their unborn children even if they are wanted and make it very difficult for working mothers to stay on the job.

Listen to the full podcast as Quigley also explains why a Republican Congress failed to stop taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and what, if anything, can be accomplished with Democrats now running the House of Representatives.

Climate Change: Fact vs. Fiction

March 9, 2018 by GregC

Every destructive weather event is not caused by climate change, there is no scientific consensus that human activity is endangering the planet, and there’s no proof the carbon dioxide is actually bad for us.

Those are among the iconoclastic conclusions reached by ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano in his new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

The first target for Morano is the environmental movement changing the terminology from global warming to climate change. Because of that, climate change activists can now chalk up every severe weather event to humans damaging the planet.

“What they try to do is switch it over to extreme weather. In other words, every drought, flood, hurricane, tornado, and yes blizzard, is now the result of global warming and what they expected. That was one of the shifts in the name of climate change because then they could cover anything and everything,” said Morano.

But the blame doesn’t stop at weather developments. He says the climate change movement sees the impact everywhere.

“An increase in prostitution? That’s global warming. Vehicle thefts going up? That’s global warming. Bar room brawls? That’s global warming. Bad coffee crop? That’s global warming. That’s climate change. Everything’s shifted over to the name climate change and they blame everything on it,” said Morano.

By 2018, many of the dire climate predictions of flooded coasts and other calamities were predicted to come true. So how do those scientists explain those erroneous projections?

“They have opposite predictions. If you bet for both teams to win the Super Bowl, you’re going to be a winner no matter what. They’ve done that. They can go back on snow in particular. Global warming will cause less snow. That’s what the United Nations said, that’s what the United Nations scientists said. That’s what was in all these studies.

“But they had a few studies that said global warming will cause an increase in snow. So they predicted global warming will cause more snow and less snow. now they can come out and say they predicted it. They predicted global warming will cause fewer lightning strikes and more lightning strikes. Now, not matter what happens, they predicted it – more malaria and less malaria, more hurricanes and fewer hurricanes,” said Morano.

But how can a “consensus” of 97 percent of climate scientists be wrong?

Easy, says Morano. That number is made up and there is nowhere near that kind of consensus.

“One study claiming 97 percent of scientists wasn’t even 97 scientists. It wasn’t even 87 scientists. It was 77 scientists and we don’t even know who these 77 anonymous scientists are. We don’t know their university affiliation. We don’t know their expertise.

“They got a survey that started with tens of thousands and they whittled it down. They tortured the data until they got what they wanted,” said Morano.

And Morano stresses the reason for all this sleight of hand is not to be missed.

“In the words of the United Nations climate chief, whom I interviewed for the book, she actually says, ‘We want a centralized transformation that will make life on planet earth very different in order to fight global warming,” said Morano.

He says this is nothing new.

“I go back to the 1970’s and I show that different environmental scares had the same solutions: wealth redistribution, central planning, and global governance. These are the exact phrases they’ve been using for 40 years trying to promote the solution to the crisis. Global warming is just the most recent crisis,” said Morano.

Morano interviewed former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, an ardent opponent of the climate change movement because it reminds him of what he saw for decades behind the Iron Curtain.

“He said, ‘Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the greatest threat since the fall is ambitious environmentalism from the climate agenda.’ He considers them the greatest threat to liberty, this whole climate agenda. And this is a man who grew up under that agenda,” said Morano.

Morano is fully confident the truth is on his side in this debate, but he is unsure whether his side will win the debate given the United Nations, most world leaders, Hollywood, the media, and liberal politicians all insisting the science is settled and action must be taken.

He is especially concerned about how early schools are targeting young kids with this message.

“This is absolute brainwashing of children. They are taught from a very young age that there is no dissent on this issue. Not only is there no dissent but no dissent is allowed. You are going to be called an idiot. You are going to be disenfranchised. You will have no career unless you toe the line. This is very far from science.

“One scientist I interviewed was actually called a heretic after she reversed her view and became a skeptic. Those are not the words of science. Those are the words of religion,” said Morano.

Morano says he wrote the book to give kids and parents a way to push back.

“The book is an entertaining, humorous book first and foremost. Make no mistake about it, this is not a boring textbook. This is for parents and for anyone in the public who wants to debate and parents who want ammunition as their kids get indoctrinated,” said Morano.

He applauds President Trump for setting the U.S. on the path to withdrawing from the Paris climate deal and for rolling back a number of government regulations from water rules to emissions standards on coal-fired power plants. Still, Morano urges Trump to find a science czar to push back on the science as well as the damage such rules could do to the economy.

Morano also says the environmental movement will never stop.

“They are all in on this. They are going to keep pushing and they have an agenda. And if global warming were to fade, they would replace it with another environmental scare at some point, with the same solutions,” said Morano.

‘This Wasn’t About Abortion, It Was About Infanticide’

January 23, 2018 by GregC

Live Action President Lila Rose says President Trump is off to a “promising” start on pro-life issues but she says the president and Congress must do what it takes to defund Planned Parenthood at a time when Democrats are voting in favor of “infanticide.”

Still in her twenties, Rose has been a leading pro-life activist for a decade, starting when she was 15. She gained notoriety for videotaping her experiences posing as a pregnant teenager at various Planned Parenthood facilities.

One year into the Trump presidency and 45 years since the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, Rose gives the administration a decent grade on pro-life issues.

“I think the last year has been promising. I would use that word, especially the folks that he’s surrounded himself with, and the appointments he’s made, and the confirming of Justice Gorsuch. These are good signs,” said Rose.

“I think it’s good that he showed up to speak from the Rose Garden at the March for Life. I think his appointments are good on [Health and Human Services]. The head of the Department of Justice is now investigating Planned Parenthood. These are good things, but we really have to achieve the biggest thing, which is stopping the government forcing of taxpayers to fund abortion chains,” said Rose.

“We are urging to administration to really lean on Congress to make sure they get that bill to ensure that we’re not funding the biggest abortion chain (Planned Parenthood) $1.5 million every day,” added Rose.

Republicans did try to include defunding of Planned Parenthood in various forms of Obamacare repeal or reform legislation, only to be thwarted by the likes of Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Rose does worry that congressional leaders and members may be more eager to promise defunding Planned Parenthood than to actually do it.

“I am concerned about lip service and I think others in the movement are concerned. This is a really hard thing to do. You basically have to break 50 votes. Depending on how the rules are changed or amended, you could get the vice president to weigh in and be the tiebreaker in the Senate.

“There is a path to do it. It’s a matter of is this going to be the most important thing for the administration when it comes to upholding the first human right and protecting human life in this country,” said Rose.

While Rose and other pro-life activists pressure lawmakers to make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority, she is appalled by how Democrats approached Friday’s House vote on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

The legislation would require medical personnel to do whatever possible to save the life of a baby if he or she emerges alive from the mother’s womb following an attempted abortion. It reinforces existing policy on this front but also adds criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison for failing to pursue life-saving measures.

The bill passed, with all Republicans voting for it, but 183 of 189 Democrats opposed it.

Planned Parenthood denounced the bill.

“Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond. Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from giving the best care to their patients. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly opposes this legislation, calling it a “gross interference in the practice of medicine,'” said a PLanned Parenthood statement.

Planned Parenthood official Dana Singiser took it even further.

“The political agenda here is clear: to take away access to safe, legal abortion,” said Singiser in the same statement.

But Rose says this vote just shows how radical Democrats are on abortion now.

“I think it just shows the insanity of the Democratic Party today, which is really going to hurt them in elections the more word gets out. This bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, wasn’t even about abortion. It was about infanticide. It was about protecting children who have been born and who deserve to be protected,” said Rose.

“The fact that Democrats in a huge voting bloc, tried to reject a bill that would protect against infanticide is extremely troubling. Look, most of the electorate – including in the Democratic Party – want at least some restrictions on abortion. That’s the majority of Democrats, including Democrat women,” said Rose.

Rose says Democrats are increasingly marching to whatever tune Planned Parenthood is playing.

“They help elect these people so even though these folks try to mislead voters to say that they were more moderate or they cared about human rights or do what was best once in office, their elections are being funded by Planned Parenthood.

“They’re going to march to the beat of their drum, even if that beat ultimately includes shooting down protections against infanticide,” said Rose.

One of the major themes at Friday’s March for Life was how science is on the side of the pro-life movement, most especially with the advancements in ultrasound technology, but in other ways as well. Rose says the arguments that life begins at birth or viability should determine personhood are relics from years past.

“If you create an arbitrary line at birth, then you are killing children who are viable before birth, children that are separated by inches of a birth canal from human rights protections. It’s arbitrary. It doesn’t make sense,” said Rose.

And she says science is winning the viability debate as well.

“Viability is being increasingly moved backwards. Children can now survive outside the womb with medical assistance a little past 21 weeks. That’s incredible. The more we develop our medical technology, the more and more that viability line will change. People are realizing it’s an arbitrary line and that life, as science reveals, begins at the moment of conception,” said Rose.

Rose says the pro-life movement has a lot of momentum right now both politically and to some extent in the courts. However, she does contend Congress needs to seize that momentum and end taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood for this Congress to be a true success.

She also claims cultural momentum, pointing out that more Americans are pro-life and young people a major reason why. Rose also says the personal stories of mothers who carry difficult pregnancies to term and the testimonies of former abortion clinic workers are making a big difference in changing minds around the nation.

Standard Podcast [ 11:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

‘I’m Glad Trump Had the Fortitude to Stick It Out’

June 1, 2017 by GregC

President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, and one of the leading climate experts disputing the purported consensus on climate science is praising Trump for making the right decision for the American economy and for sound science.

“I’m glad that Trump had the fortitude to stick it out despite all the attempts to waylay him,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a retired climatologist at the University of Winnipeg and author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”

“He didn’t have to rely on the false science. He relied strictly on the economics of it, that it’s a very very bad deal for the United States. In fact, it’s deliberately designed to punish the United States,” said Ball.

Ball says the Paris Climate Accords were simply the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990’s which sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. He contends the Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is latest effort in that regard.

Ball points out the non-binding nature of the agreement – which is the only way the deal could be struck – means most nations have not contributed what they’ve pledged to the Green Climate Fund.

Nonetheless, Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the non-binding deal resulted in howls of protest from critics, with environmental activist Tom Steyer claiming the action was treasonous and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria insisting the move means the U.S. is surrendering its role as leader of the free world.

Ball says none of the criticism is based in actual science.

“They use the environment and they use the climate as a vehicle for a political agenda. All they can do when you say I’m not going along with the political agenda is invoke that the sky is falling,” said Ball.

Ball says many of the political opponents of Trump are simply led to their position by perpetrators of bad science. He says Pope Francis is the perfect example.

“One of the most egregious ones was the pope. The pope got co-opted by (Hans Joachim) Schellnhuber at the Potsdam Institute in Germany. He was the key author for the pope’s encyclical against global warming,” said Ball.

He says the notion that humans can dictate radical changes to the earth’s climate are the height of arrogance.

“The reality is that the levels of energy involved and the amount of energy that humans put in are so miniscule that it is actually laughable to think that we can control the climate in any way,” said Ball.

Trump did say he was open to renegotiating the Paris agreement or forging new deals with other nations that would be more beneficial to the United States. Ball says those talks should be done only after Trump gets a better handle on genuine climate science.

“What I hope will happen is that this will now allow a focus more on the science that is purportedly behind the claims that CO2 is a problem,” said Ball, noting every United National climate change prediction has been badly incorrect.

“It’s got to be real science, proven science. Their science has failed. We know that because their forecasts have failed. If your forecasts are wrong, your science is wrong,” said Ball.

Standard Podcast [ 10:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download