Mann to Man

ORIGIN OF THE 97% "CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS" ON GLOBAL WARMING  (references added at end on o3/24/2013) The highly promoted mantra that a 97% "consensus of scientists" proves global warming is a critical issue and, even more importantly, is man-made is improperly arrived at and, hence, is invalid. Scientific conclusions and  laws are arrived at not by consensus but from indisputable data and information arrived at by proper use of the "Scientific Method" and statistics. Both were ignored in coming to the "97% consensus" conclusion. It is all but inarguable that politicians co-opted science and "scientists" and both politicized and commercialized the issue called "global warming." With much criticism of the lack of data to prove "global warming, more emphasis now is on "climate change." How was the "97% consensus of scientists derived?" Mr. Roland (Keith) Sadler gives the following explan...

Dan Pangburn 12 March, 2014 There are only two primary drivers of average global temperature change. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610). CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers. The drivers are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ Dan Pangburn, ME and mem ber of ASME, posted the information above as a comment to my blogpost on March 12, 2014 rebutting a very flawed published article. It was not my intent initially to engage in the arguments for global warming, rather I simply found it desirable, even necessary, to clarify misinformation for the public. However, I am more than a skeptic. Mr. Pangburn's excellent scholarly information in the link abov e is so compelling as to dictate that I go further to inform people as much as possible the purpose of my blog.  In addition, a...

REBUTTAL TO  A HIGHLY FLAWED OP-ED IN THE VA GAZETTE MARCH 11, 2013 This post breaks down an incredibly flawed op-ed that appeared in The Virginia Gazette, a unit of the Daily Press, a Tribune paper, that tried to discredit three very credible earlier op-eds that challenged the methodology of "scientists" at the fore of global warming claims. The author is billed as a retired NASA Scientist who, it would seem, has no experience in the "science" of so-called global warming (or any science ). With years of reading and writing I have never seen such a flawed article. This is my rebuttal that ran today in The Virginia Gazette. Note: Both Mr. Kauffman's and Mr. Brown's articles are posted on this blog on February 7 and 9 under "Climate Change, Questioning The Mantra." Recently, Steve Kauffman and Michael J. Brown published scholarly work in defining “The Scientific Method” as the bedrock principle for technological research and development...

HOW OBAMACARE KILLS  by Dr. Robert Warren. PhD Gone are the heady days associated with passing the Obamacare legislation. What now exists is a malfunctioning regulatory machine that belongs in the bureaucratic equivalent of an auto repair shop. If the website doesn’t work, fix it. If the thousands of regulations don’t work, fix them. If the insurance exchanges need a major overhaul, fix them. But where are living, breathing people in all of this? Joe is in his late thirties. He has an aggressive cancer that will end his life in a few months. As a last shot at life he petitioned for and received approval for a stem cell replacement – and then his insurance was canceled. He is having difficulty getting a new insurance company, and even if he does, he will have to go through another lengthy appeal process that will rapidly reduce or even eliminate his survival chances. In desperation, he called a well known radio talk show host for help. Susan is in her forties...