Google+ Followers

Saturday, June 29, 2013

OBAMA: ‘WE WILL BE JUDGED’ ON WHAT WE DO ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE/FACT CHECK: OBAMA GROUP DISTORTS GOP VIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NEW AD, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler gave the video four “Pinocchios,” indicating “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

arack Obama said Americans will be “judged” on what they do to combat the threat of climate change, and urged them not to vote for any politicians who don’t vow to protect future generations.
“Decades of carefully reviewed science tells us our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on the world we leave to our children,” Obama said in his weekly address. “Already, we know that the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15, and that last year was the warmest in American history.”
Obama: We Will Be Judged on What We Do About Climate Change
President Barack Obama wipes perspiration from his face as he speaks about climate change at Georgetown University in Washington, Tuesday, June 25, 2013. (AP)
Obama’s address comes in the midst of his new push to combat pollution and prepare for the effects of changing climate, including setting first-ever limits for new and existing power plants on greenhouse gas emissions.
He said those already feeling the effects of climate change “don’t have time to deny it, they’re busy dealing with it,” including firefighters with longer wildfire seasons and farmers with wilting and washed out crops.
“If you agree with me, I’ll need you to act,” Obama said. “Educate your classmates and colleagues, your family and friends. Speak up in your communities. Remind everyone who represents you, at every level of government, that there is no contradiction between a sound environment and a strong economy – and that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.”
He continued, “We will be judged – as a people, as a society, and as a country – on where we go from here. The plan I have put forward to reduce carbon pollution and protect our country from the effects of climate change is the path we need to take. And if we remember what’s at stake – the world we leave to our children – I’m convinced that this is a challenge that we will meet.”


he non-profit Organizing for Action, which was established to support President Barack Obama’s second term agendas, took a stab at climate change in a recent political ad, slamming Republicans on the issue. But was the group accurate?
OFA’s video posted on YouTube April 24 labels several Republican members of Congress as “climate deniers,” a popular term for those who deny that climate change is occurring at all or those who believe the jury is still out as to what the science says about the relation between climate change and man-made activities.
The video shows a clip of Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio saying the “fundamental question is weather man-made activity is what’s contributing most to [climate change.]”
It later shows House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) saying “It’s almost comical.”
“Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide,” he said.
Watch the full ad:
The point of contention in the video is a number stating that 240 House members voted in 2011 that climate change was a “hoax.”
Fact Checkers Find Obama Group Organizing for Action Misleading GOP Climate Change Perspective
(Image: OFA/YouTube screenshot)
FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group devoted to checking factual accuracy of political statements,delved into that number and found it applied to a Democrat-proposed amendment, which was voted down 184-240, to the Republican-initiated Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
The amendment stated, “Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”
FactCheck also noted that Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who was featured in the OFA’s video calling it a “hoax,” did not speak on the amendment during its debate.
“[In] fact, none of the Republicans who spoke against it called climate change a ‘hoax,’” FactCheck wrote.
So where did OFA get its hoax language?
“The clip in the video of [Broun] calling climate change ‘a hoax’ came from a floor speech two years earlier on June 26, 2009,” FactCheck found out.
Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler gave the video four “Pinocchios,” indicating “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”
Fact Checkers Find Obama Group Organizing for Action Misleading GOP Climate Change Perspective
(Image: Washington Post)
“Certainly there’s a strong strain of skepticism about climate change among Republican lawmakers, as demonstrated by a number of clips in the video,” Kessler wrote. “So initially we were tempted to conclude that this claim did not quite rise to Four Pinocchios. But the video seriously undercuts its credibility with the phony accounting on the amendment — and this sort of gamesmanship with congressional votes is simply not acceptable.”

Obama tries to make global warming an issue for voters:

Ask Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi how that worked out.
In his weekly radio address, Obama trie to make global warming an election issue:
If you agree with me, I’ll need you to act. Educate your classmates and colleagues, your family and friends. Speak up in your communities. Remind everyone who represents you, at every level of government, that there is no contradiction between a sound environment and a strong economy – and that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.
Read more/Watch the address.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/29/weekly-address-confronting-growing-threat-climate-change

Supreme Court allows EPA to wreck car engines with E15 ethanol:

Dow Jones reports:
-The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider legal challenges by several industry trade groups to an Environmental Protection Agency move to expand ethanol use in the U.S.
Trade groups for food producers, the oil and gas sector and the auto industry all sued to contest a pair of EPA decisions that allowed the sale of gasoline blends containing 15% ethanol. The agency regulates fuels based on the pollution they create.

Currently, most of the U.S. gasoline supply contains 10% of the renewable fuel.
The EPA’s move handed a partial victory to ethanol manufacturers, which had pushed the agency to allow the higher blends. The agency allowed the so-called E15 fuel for use in vehicles dating back to the 2001 model year, but not for older cars and trucks.
The various trade groups alleged they would suffer a variety of harms from the increased ethanol use.

For example, members of the food industry argued it would cost more to make and distribute food products because the introduction of E15 fuel would increase demand–and prices–for corn, which is used to make most ethanol.

The auto industry alleged the new fuel could damage vehicle engines, prompting consumers to bring warranty and safety claims against car makers. Petroleum refiners and importers said the introduction of E15 would force them to incur substantial costs.
Read more…

 http://www.4-traders.com/CHICAGO-CORN-MAY-13-16213/news/U-S-Supreme-Court-Won-t-Consider-Ethanol-Challenge-17040497/


Supreme Court agrees to review EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule:

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would consider the Environmental Protection Agency's bid to save a clean-air regulation that limited power-plant emissions blowing across state lines.
A federal appeals court in Washington invalidated the EPA's effort last year, handing a significant defeat to the Obama administration's regulatory approach. The regulation required cuts in emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, both associated with higher rates of heart attacks and respiratory illnesses.
The EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, issued in 2011, sought to set pollution reductions for 28 upwind states whose emissions of soot- and smog-forming air pollution degrade the air quality of states downwind.
The regulation would have affected about 1,000 power plants in the eastern half of the U.S. To comply, companies with older coal-fired plants would have had to burn less coal, shut the plants down or pay for credits to offset pollution.

The cross-state rule was to replace a Bush-era rule that the appeals court sent back to the EPA in 2008. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit faulted the Bush rule for allowing states to comply by paying other states to reduce pollution, rather than forcing each state to clean up power plants within its borders. The judges ordered the EPA to rewrite the rule, but also to enforce it in the meantime so as to achieve at least some pollution reduction.

The Obama administration's approach would have taken effect in early 2012, requiring steeper pollution cuts than the Bush rule and forcing some older power plants to close immediately or burn less coal. For now, the Bush rule remains in force and those plants may be able to keep operating until at least 2015, when a stricter EPA rule curbing mercury emissions begins to take effect.

Several states, including Ohio, Michigan and Texas, along with coal-fired power plant owners American Electric Power Co. (AEP), Southern Co. (SO), Xcel Energy Inc. (EXC), and others, challenged the EPA's efforts on several grounds.

Environmentalists and other states, including New York and Massachusetts, backed the EPA, as did companies seeking to turn a profit by replacing coal-fired power plants, a group that includes natural gas-plant owner Calpine Corp. (CPN) and Exelon Corp., owner of the largest U.S. nuclear fleet.
In a divided ruling last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that while the Bush-era rule didn't go far enough to cut pollution, the Obama administration rule went too far and exceeded the EPA's powers under the Clean Air Act.

The court said the EPA wrongly required some states to reduce more than their fair share of air pollution. It said the agency prematurely imposed federal pollution-reduction requirements without first giving states a sufficient chance to reduce pollution on their own terms.

A dissenting judge said the appeals court's ruling trampled on previous court precedent and allowed the challengers to make arguments they had never raised with the EPA.

In the Obama administration's appeal to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said the lower court ruling would "gravely undermine" the EPA's clean-air enforcement.

Analysts have said the cross-state rule would have accelerated some coal-plant shutdowns, but the plants' days are still numbered because low natural-gas prices are making coal a less attractive fuel source and because the upcoming EPA mercury rule will force plants to cut toxic emissions so much that it will be cheaper to mothball them than to install pollution-control equipment.

The court will consider the case during its next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by July 2014.

http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/news-and-features/dow-jones/article/16827/supreme-court-to-review-epa-rule-on-air-pollution-across-state-lines-epa

Friday, June 28, 2013

Libertarian Reson Magazine: Obama’s Climate Five-Year Plan — Similar central planning led to demise of communist regimes:

The central planners in communist governments were notorious for issuing massively detailed top-down five-year plans to manage every facet of their economies. The accumulating inefficiency and waste produced by this sort of rigid planning led eventually to the demise of those regimes.
Speaking at Georgetown University on Tuesday, President Barack Obama outlined his “new national climate action plan,” which amounts to a federal top-down five-year plan—although he has only four years to implement it. Obama’s plan ambitiously seeks to control nearly every aspect of how Americans produce and consume energy. The goal is to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases and thus stop boosting the temperature of the earth. The actual result will be to infect the economy with the same sort of sclerosis seen in other centrally planned nations.
Let’s take a look at four aspects of the Obama five-year plan: rationing carbon, boosting renewable energy and energy efficiency, subsidizing climate resilience, and negotiating international limits on emissions.
Rationing Carbon
Way back in January 2008, when he was just a senator running for the presidency, Obama told the San Francisco Chroniclethat he “was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter.” That way, he explained, “if somebody wants to build a [conventional] coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Five years later, Obama is doing what he said he’d do. His plan directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.” The EPA is still formulating those standards, but in their current draft form they would limit new power plants to emitting 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. Since conventional coal-fired plants typically emit around 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour generated, the new rule would essentially be a ban on building new coal-fired power plants.
If the EPA were to establish a uniform 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour standard, that would eliminate nearly all coal-fired plants in the United States, which generated about 37 percent of the country’s electricity last year. In comparison, natural gas plants generated 30 percent, nuclear 19 percent, hydropower 7 percent, wind 3.5 percent, biomass 1.4 percent, petroleum 1 percent, geothermal 0.4 percent, and solar 0.1 percent.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Obama did say in 2008 that he supported the development of clean coal technologies. The president’s new national climate plan includes $8 billion in loan guarantees for “advanced fossil energy projects,” presumably including clean coal technologies involving carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The Department of Energy is currently supplying $1 billion in a stimulus grant to the FutureGen CCS project in Illinois.
The FutureGen project proposes to capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by its 200-megawatt plant and inject about a million tons annually underground. If it works, the overall emissions from a coal-fired plant using CCS would certainly meet a 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour standard. However, the Energy Information Administration’s 2013 analysis of the levelized costs (including capital, fuel, and operation and maintenance) of new power generation sources reports that in 2018 CCS would boost the cost of coal-fired electricity by about 35 percent over conventional generation. Assuming coal still accounted for 37 percent of generation, a quick calculation implies that monthly household electricity bills could jump from an average of $110 to more than $124.
The president’s national climate plan also sets “a goal to double renewable electricity generation once again by 2020.” That would mean that wind power would produce 7 percent and solar power 0.2 percent of America’s energy by then. For what it’s worth, the Energy Information Administrtion estimates the levelized costs in 2018 for conventional coal would be $100 per megawatt-hour; conventional natural gas $67; nuclear $108; wind $87; and solar photovoltaic $144.
In his Georgetown speech, President Obama declared, “Countries like China and Germany are going all out in the race for clean energy.” The president did not note that German electricity prices have soared as the country subsidized the installation of solar and wind power. German households in 2012 paid an average of 35 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared the U.S. average of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. If Americans were paying for power at German rates, our households' monthly power bills (at 940 kilowatt-hours) would average $330 instead of $110, or an additional $2,640 per year for household electricity.  The president also neglected to mention that China’s much-lauded and much-subsidized solar panel industry is going through a bit of a financial rough patch.
The president plans to mandate improvements in the energy efficiency of appliances and buildings. This makes a kind of central-planning sense. Since his new regulations will raise the cost of electric power to consumers, he wants to lower the amount they use so that their monthly bills don’t go up. The hope is that consumers won’t notice that they are paying more for less energy.
In any case, thanks to market incentives, American consumers and businesses are already engaged in continually improving their energy efficiency. The amount of energy it takes to produce a dollar of GDP has fallen by more than 50 percent over the past 40 years, mostlywithout the help of central planners. That’s not enough for the president, who wants to double energy productivity between now and 2030.
Despite the spectacular flameouts of numerous federally subsidized "green energy" companies—Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Fisker Automobile, Range Fuels, and others—the president still thinks that wise federal bureaucrats can profitably invest about $8 billion annually in “clean energy research, development, and deployment.” He also reiterated his support for the “renewable fuels standard” that requires refiners to add billions of gallons of bioethanol made from corn to gasoline. Due largely to the mandate, 43 percent of America’s corn crop ended up in our gas tanks last year. Surely, plowing up the extra farmland to grow corn for fuel ethanol can’t be good for the natural environment.

And the president commended Republicans in Congress for supporting $12 billion in tax creditsfor wind energy manufacturers and producers. If bioethanol and wind power really could compete with conventional power sources, they wouldn’t need mandates and subsidies.http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/28/obamas-climate-five-year-plan/1

I just stated a new group On Soda Head .com join if you like:Global-Warming is a Hoax: See rule and if you do not like them , then do not join the group!

Note My my User Name on Soda is the same as my Blog! 

What is SodaHead?

SodaHead is a community that offers a free and dynamic discussion environment! Ask questions, answer questions posed by others, discuss the day's top news stories, and connect with friends. SodaHead's founders created the site to let people share opinions and celebrate the diversity of unique perspectives. 
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/


How can I find questions?

If you know what you’re looking for, enter it in the search bar to find question on that topic. If you’re just browsing, you have several options:

■ Click "Answer" in the top right corner to get started. Browse the hottest or most recently asked questions, and filter them by category

■ Browse the homepage to find discussion on the latest news, see Real Time Opinions, answer the Big Question of the Day, and discover popular content

■ Check out the Entertainment CategoryNews & Politics CategoryLiving Categroy and Fun Categories for popular and recent questions

■ The SodaHead Originals are our best and brightest writers that post questions and slideshows on the latest topics in all of our categories

How do I ask my own question?

Asking a question is easy - just click "Ask" in the top right corner or enter your question in the "Ask Something" bar found throughout the site. Then just follow the steps on the question page: 

■ Enter your question

■ Add any info you want to include

■ Select your answer choices, or leave the question open-ended

■ Add images and video to make your question stand out in the crowd

You can add media by uploading it, using the Google image/video search tool, or by entering the URL of an image/video you want to use. These options are all on the Ask a Question page. 


How do I make a poll private?

Click on Advanced Options before finishing your poll. This will open up options to allow (or disallow) anonymous votes on your poll, randomize the order of the answers, choose an end date for voting, and decide whether your poll will be public (viewable by all) or personal (viewable by URL and widget). 

How do I get my question featured?

Each category page has a carousel of featured content that is updated throughout the day. If you'd like to be featured here alongside the SodaHead Originals, here are some guidelines to follow:

■ Don't Copy/Paste - Articles that have been copied and pasted from another source will not be featured. If you want to talk about an article from another website or blog, include a brief summary or description in your own words and use the optional URL field to paste a link to the original source.

■ Make Your Question a Poll - Poll questions with short, straightforward answer choices are more likely to be featured. Polls have viewable results that allow for increased interactivity and engagement with other SodaHeads.

■ Catchy Content - Write concise, catchy questions with straightforward answers. Feel free to add as much personality to your post as you want, but don't let too many words detract from your message. Extremely long posts are difficult to digest, and will most likely not get featured.

■ Keep Things Respectful - We know you're an opinionated lot, and we always expect you to share your views freely. However, if your post is designed to provoke a flame war or bash a particular group, it will probably not get featured. The more journalistic and professional your post, the more likely it is to get featured.

■ Add an Image - Add an image to your post. Content with images is more likely to get featured.

■ Get the Discussion Started - After posting, share your post with as many people as possible. If our editors see lots of people discussing your content, they will more likely feature it.

Once you've created your masterpiece, you can send it to us for consideration using the contact form.

How do I get my question out to my friends?

On the final page before finishing the question, you can choose from many options to promote your new question. Import your address book to send the question to all your contacts, or choose which contacts you want to send to it to.  If you have friends in your SodaHead community, you can send it to them here as well. This is an easy way to get answers to your questions immediately and interact with people you know.
How do I find friends on SodaHead?

Besides adding SodaHeads who ask questions that interest you and share opinions you like, you can browse the site for interesting SodaHeads to meet. Use the SodaHeads tab to browse users you might be interested in. You can sort by raves, answers received, last log-in, new users, and answers given. Once you've answered some questions, the My Matches tab here will show users who have answered similarly.



Global warming conspiracy theory is a collection of allegations that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind anthropogenic global warming has been invented and is being perpetuated for financial or ideology

Thursday, June 27, 2013

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming:

MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT:  Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT:  Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6:  The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.  

MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

 
MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT:  The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. 
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
SourceFriends of Science website. 

Claim: Chemical in antibacterial soaps may harm nursing babies

This is junk science because…
This claim is based on a study in lab rats — and lab rats are not little people. Regardless of its actual efficacy in the real world, triclocarban has been used without obvious ill effect since the 1950s.
The media release is below.
###
UT study: Chemical in antibacterial soaps may harm nursing babies
KNOXVILLE—A mother’s prolonged use of antibacterial soaps containing the chemical triclocarban may harm nursing babies, according to a recent study from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The study, which was conducted on rats, showed that exposure to the compound may reduce the survival rates of babies.
Rebekah Kennedy, a UT graduate student pursuing a dual master’s degree in public health and nutrition, and Jiangang Chen, an assistant professor in the UT Department of Public Health, presented the results this month at the Endocrine Society’s 95th Annual Meeting and Expo in San Francisco. Kennedy was the study’s lead author.
Triclocarban, a bactericide, is found primarily in antibacterial bar soaps.
The researchers noted that they were not condemning the use of antibacterial soaps.
“People have to weigh their own risks and decide what would be the best route,” Kennedy said. “There’s always a time and place for antibacterial bar soaps, such as in health care settings where the chance of infection and transmission is high. For the average person, antibacterial soap is no more effective than regular soap.”
Chen conducted an earlier study that examined how prolonged exposure to triclocarban affected growth of sex organs in adult male rats. Kennedy decided to go a step further and look into how it would affect baby rats in the womb and during nursing.
Humans are exposed to triclocarban through skin absorption. Research shows that based on how the compound is biotransformed, oral exposure in rats is similar to dermal exposure for humans, Kennedy said.
During Kennedy’s research, pregnant rats fed with triclocarban through food had similar blood concentrations compared to human blood concentrations after a 15-minute shower using antibacterial soap.
The study found that triclocarban did not affect the post-birth survival rate of baby rats exposed to the compound in the womb. But baby rats nursed by mothers that were exposed to the compound did not survive beyond the sixth day after birth.
The results showed that a mother’s long-term use and exposure to triclocarban could affect her baby’s early development, according to the animal model, Kennedy said.
Humans may be exposed to triclocarban through other ways besides skin absorption, including produce consumption, Chen said. Triclocarban is washed down the drain, where about 95 percent of it is removed when wastewater is treated. The remainder may still be a problem, particularly since treated wastewater is used for agricultural purposes.
“There are potential exposure routes in daily life we are not aware of,” Chen said. “The goal is to try to minimize those if at all possible.”

The Top 5 Lies Of Obama's Climate Change Speech.

False Witness: President Obama is being lauded for his plans to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. But the scheme looks more like the last refuge of a desperate movement, because the speech he gave in its defense was full of lies.
Al Gore called Obama's Tuesday presentation at Georgetown University a "terrific and historic speech." It was not an honest message, though.
His text was laden with myths, fables, distortions and outright lies. Here are the top five:
1. "The planet is warming."
Earth's post-1950 warming trend stopped at least 16 years ago. This is an admission made by Britain's Met Office last fall. The media have confirmed the lack of warming, including the New York Times, which says the warming stopped 15 years ago rather than 16.
2. "Human activity is contributing to it."
There is no way that Obama or anyone else can say with any degree of certainty that human activity is contributing to climate change. Weather and climate are complex, are controlled by a multitude of variables, and are only dimly understood.
Scientists are free to claim that man is causing the planet to warm. And of course they do. But if they say it's an indisputable fact, that there is no room for the possibility that humans aren't responsible for post-Little Ice Age warming, then they are being dishonest.
3. "The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that (doubt) to rest."
There is dissent in the scientific community, and it's not insignificant.
Consider a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists, conducted by academics and its findings peer reviewed. The researchers discovered that 24% of the respondents "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth" while another 10% consider the "'real' cause of climate change" to be "unknown" and acknowledge that "nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."
Two of the study's academics reported that "skepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains" among climate scientists.
4. "Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that (doubt) to rest."
This claim is from something called the "Doran Survey," which supposedly found that 75 of 77 climatologists agree that man is causing global warming. But 77 isn't an adequate sample size from which to draw such a conclusion and this group of scientists holds "unknown qualifications," says Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environment writer. It's a dubious finding.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062613-661588-presid... 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook