-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.
The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.
The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”
Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:
There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:
More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:
Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.
H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).
so you can have an SUV now?
Proof electric cars DO cause more pollution than normal ones: Study shows impact is worse than petrol-powered vehicles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2100936/Study-shows-impact-electric-cars-worse-petrol-powered-vehicles.html
I think Gene is Chris Langan cousin.
He knows everything. In a room of 100 people he’s smarter than 99%. Don’t believe me just ask him.
“The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.”
Then again, it might not be wrong either. Considering the possible negative outcomes, an ounce of protection beats a pound of cure. But if you’d rather gamble with the future of humanity so you can have an SUV now? Be my guest. Dumb isn’t against the law. We’re all screwed in 250 million years anyway when Pangaea Proxima forms, but as a species we’ll probably manage to off ourselves through our own stupidity long before then if an asteroid or comet doesn’t take us out.
The only person Bdaman takes to the woodshed on AGW science is himself, Bron. With or without your cheerleading.
Bdaman:
you takin Gene to the woodshed again?
And finally this one is getting alot of air play.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Find out who Mike Stopa is first
What if They are Wrong?
http://www.mikestopa.com/2012/01/what-if-they-are-wrong/
Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/scientists-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/
Here’s the second one
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
IPCC reviewer resigns from AGU saying: I will not renew my AGU membership.
Martin Hovland writes in with this statement. It seems that AGU Position Statement keeps costing them members.
He writes:
Although I have been a long-time member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), I hereby refuse to pay my membership fees. The main problem is the organization’s Position Statement on the purported “Human impacts on Climate” This statement includes the following statements: “During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it.
Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”
As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.
Martin Hovland
Here’s the first funny
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3).
Science 3 December 2004:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
ROTFLMAOH Very Funny
I don’t just say so, Bdaman. Actual scientist agree.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
So you think 350 ppm is the safe zone? If we can get it there everything will be fine. We wont have any major hurricanes floods droughts ice melting. Its gonna be like we all live in Hawaii right. Again ROTFLMAO
Ok Gene if you say so ROTFLMAO
Bdaman,
“It won’t be long now.” I don’t care what you think is going to happen. I’m interested in what the scientific consensus is now. Someday someone might trump Einstein in toto, but until it happens, I’m sticking with Uncle Albert. Right now the consensus is that global warming is both real and a threat for the very reasons I mentioned about instability and eventual shift in climate.
And that second type of “scientist” is in the minority and not really a scientist but rather a paid spokesperson.
Gene we are seeing a growing number of scientist coming out of the closet. These scientist were believers and are now deniers if you will.
It won’t be long now. As I said Green Energy companies are collapsing left and right. Germany is going back to burning coal and oil after being the leader in green technology use. This after Germanys father green recently became a denier. Go ahead and tell me who’s paying him to flipflop. You can read about him here.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
I have shown you time and time again that the leading body on climate change the IPCC gives out false and erroneous information. There reports are riddled with errors.
Bdaman,
In re your post of February 14, 2012 at 4:26 am.
You are displaying a lack of understanding of complex systems and how adding entropy (heat) into them causes failure. Global warming does not mean that daily temperatures are going to immediately rise (or fall) for a given period. It means that the aggregate heat load of the atmosphere is growing and this growth will cause unstable weather (at both ends of the spectrum) as that aggregate heat load increase. These fluctuations are a sign of systemic instability – chaos. As the wavelengths shorten and the amplitude of the fluctuations increase over time (as they will as long as entropy/heat is added to the system), eventually a tipping point is reached and the climate will “break” – a new level of homeostasis will be sought to accommodate the extra heat added to the system.
The immediate threat of global warming is unstable weather.
The long term threat is radical climate shift.
These are not things about which scientists disagree . . . unless they are being paid by someone with a vested interest in not reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons. And that second type of “scientist” is in the minority and not really a scientist but rather a paid spokesperson.
Oh and I forgot to mention Genesis.
Another Taxpayer Funded $825 Million Solar Loan Going to Waste
Solyndra? Let’s try Genesis. In Southern California, federal and state governments have been working to expedite a solar project in order to satisfy President Obama’s solar agenda. The problems that could derail the $825 million taxpayer funded project? Kit foxes and an ancient burial site.
The $1-billion Genesis Solar Energy Project has been expedited by state and federal regulatory agencies that are eager to demonstrate that the nation can build solar plants quickly to ease dependence on fossil fuels and curb global warming.
Instead, the project is providing a cautionary example of how the rush to harness solar power in the desert can go wrong — possibly costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and dealing an embarrassing blow to the Obama administration’s solar initiative.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/02/14/another_825_million_solar_loan
By the way this just in.
Ailing Energy Conversion Devices Inc. said Tuesday it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Michigan and hopes to sell its United Solar Ovonic subsidiary and other assets.
“What would happen to Energy Conversion Devices is that it would be wound down,” said spokesman Michael Schostak. “It’s essentially a break-up of the company.”
The bankruptcy is at least the fourth by a solar manufacturer in the past year in an industry plagued by declining prices, too much product and reduced government subsidies. The filing was predicted by several analysts, who were concerned the Auburn Hills-based solar products manufacturer would not be able to make a June 2013 payment, totaling more than $263 million, which will be due on notes.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120214/BIZ/202140405/Energy-Conversion-Devices-files-bankruptcy-lost-306-4M-last-year?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
You’re out of your depth. Stay in the shallow end of the pool. Bye.
Saying it so doesn’t make it so.
Bob go look each one up yourself. This is the only way you will learn and believe.
Here we will start you with this one. But remember after Katrina Gore said Katrina type storms would become the norm.
On December 4, 2011 it will have been 2,232 days since Hurricane Wilma made landfall along the Gulf coast as a category 3 storm back in 2005. That number of days will break the existing record of days between major US hurricane landfalls, which previously was between 8 Sept 1900 (the great Galveston Hurricane) and 19 Oct 1906. Since there won’t be any intense hurricanes before next summer, the record will be shattered, with the days between intense hurricane landfalls likely to exceed 2,500 days.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/