Scientists find that the huge forested area is teeming with large animals such as red deer, wild boar and wolves
by Steve Connor • Independent
The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which was evacuated in 1986 after a devastating explosion and fire, has become a wildlife haven on a par with heavily-protected nature reserves, scientists have found.
A detailed survey of the huge forested area around the stricken plant has revealed that it is teeming with large animals such elk, roe deer, red deer, wild boar and wolves despite being contaminated with radioactive fallout.
The scientists found no evidence to support earlier studies suggesting that wildlife in the region had suffered from the radiation released after the Chernobyl accident of 1986 which sent plumes of radioactive emissions across much of northern Europe, causing radiation “hotspots” within the exclusion zone. Continue reading
by Kerry Picket • Daily Caller
ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff says the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”
A Harvard University professor says, “We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.”
Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.” Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.” Continue reading
by Jeff Jacoby • The Boston Globe
Unless you’ve spent the last few weeks in solitary meditation on a remote island, you couldn’t miss the wave of media stories breathlessly proclaiming that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. As usual, the coverage was laced with alarm about the menace posed by climate change, and with disapproval of skeptics who decline to join in the general panic.
Among those seizing on the news to make a political point was President Obama, who used his State of the Union address to voice disdain for those who don’t share his view. “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists,” he scoffed. “Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But. . . I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities.” Continue reading
Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data.
by Bjorn Lomborg • The Wall Street Journal
It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected. Continue reading
The Obama administration is trying to scare us with totally unverifiable projections of a disastrous global warming. We trust that most people are not going to fall for this outrageous scare-mongering.
The ballyhooed third National Climate Assessment, released last Wednesday by several agencies, alleges first, the world has warmed over the last century and second, it’s going to get much worse.
This is supposed to convince us of the wisdom of President Obama’s plans to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief gas said to be warming the planet. Continue reading
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest mammoth report last week, and the effort marks an improvement over the IPCC’s last such effort in 2007. That may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending.
The IPCC’s “Fifth Assessment Report,” or AR5, is generating the usual alarmist headlines: “Impacts on All Continents, Worse to Come” was typical. That’s partly a function of what the IPCC frontloads into the 28-page “summary for policymakers,” the only portion of the report that most politicians or journalists ever bother reading, and that is sexed up for mass media consumption. Continue reading
Global warming alarmists are howling in outrage as Charles Krauthammer followed up a surgical takedown of global warming alarmism in his Washington Post column last week with a similarly brilliant appearance on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor this week. For all the alarmists’ collective outrage, they have yet to identify a single error in what Krauthammer wrote and said. In the process, they have perfectly illustrated the difference between global warming skepticism, which relies on scientific evidence, and global warming alarmism, which relies on name-calling and temper tantrums.
Krauthammer began his Washington Post column by expressing concern about human carbon dioxide emissions. He followed that up by pointing out the virtues of critical inquiry and the Scientific Method. In particular, he pointed out several global warming subtopics in which alarmists have been wrong on the facts. Krauthammer documented how hurricanes have become less frequent and severe, how tornadoes have similarly moderated, how climate models show global warming should increase rather than decrease California rainfall, and how alarmist computer models consistently predict far more warming than occurs in the real world. Continue reading
NEWS FLASH: The climate naturally fluctuates over time. Throughout history there have been many warmer and cooler periods. Some of those were dramatically warmer and dramatically cooler and some where gradually warmer or cooler. There was once an ice age. Thankfully, there was obviously a warming period that ended the ice age. We’ve had cooler periods and warmer periods since the end of the ice age as well.
So now when the climate fluctuates with a brief and moderate warming period that is well within historical norms, there are some alarmists who vociferously argue that this is an unprecedented event and it will cause catastrophic ecological damage to the planet as well as economic damage to the human population. The actual hard evidence supporting such theories is almost nonexistent. Most of what the alarmists point to are computer models of their own creation with assumptions and mathematical multipliers of their own creation. But that is not real evidence. Continue reading