Skeptical climatologist Dr. John Christy believes 7 gunshots ‘targeted’ his office floor during ‘March for Science’
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, updated April 25, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Nationally prominent climate change skeptic Dr. John Christy believes his office floor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was “targeted” by gunshots over the national March for Science weekend.
“To me, it looks like the fourth floor was targeted,” Christy said Tuesday. The pattern of the damage “does raise the possibility it was a little more than a coincidence,” he said.
However, UAH police think the shooting was a “random, isolated” act. They found cartridge casings beside Sparkman Drive in front of Cramer Hall, where Christy’s office is on the fourth floor. Bushes and trees between the hall and the street make it likely someone wanting to shoot from the street into the building would aim at the top two floors, they said.
“UAH police are investigating an incident where seven bullets struck Cramer Hall on the university’s campus while the building was unoccupied sometime between Friday night and Monday morning,” the university said in a statement today. “Investigators believe the incident to be a random, isolated event unlikely to be a premeditated act. Anyone with any information about this crime is encouraged to email the UAH Police at [email protected].”
The university police say they found no relevant images from campus security cameras or the cameras at a nearby defense contractor. They have marked the case “inactive” pending new information.
Cramer Hall is a complex of two large buildings connected by a glass connector. A total of seven bullet marks were visible in the sides of both buildings and the glass connector Tuesday. One went through a window in the office next to Christy’s.
Christy’s colleague and fellow climate change skeptic Dr.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry told conference goers he would not advise President Donald Trump to “walk away” from the Paris climate agreement, but conceded the agreement will need to be renegotiated.
Perry made the remarks at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance summit in New York City Tuesday. Perry is the only Trump administration slated to speak at the conference, which largely focuses on promoting green energy as a solution to global warming.
The White House is considering whether or not to keep Trump’s campaign pledge to pull out of the Paris agreement. Conservative groups want Trump to keep his promise, but some energy companies and administration officials are trying to pull him the other way.
On one side, Ivanka Trump, White House aide Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson support remaining in Paris. White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt oppose the Paris agreement.
Perry’s remarks likely put him in the “remain” camp, pitting him against Bannon and Pruitt. A source previously told The Daily Caller’s Kaitlan Collins that Perry has softened his stance on Paris.
The Paris agreement commits United Nations members to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. President Barack Obama’s Paris pledge has the U.S. cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
The Paris agreement was never ratified by the Senate — a constitutional requirement for treaties.…
By Andrew Follett
A Harvard physician thought the recent “March For Science” looked more like a religious event than one to promote the value of the scientific method.
“Being ‘pro-science’ has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it,” Dr. Jeremy Faust, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate.
“There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept — an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse,” Faust wrote. “That is not intellectually rigorous thought — instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.”
Faust said marchers are wrong about what’s really imperiling science — it’s not attacks from the public and political class, but attacks from within.
“The scientific method itself is already under constant attack from within the scientific community itself and is ceaselessly undermined by its so-called supporters, including during marches like those on Saturday,” Faust wrote.
Faust points out that academics are under serious financial pressure to rapidly and continually publish research to sustain or further their careers, even if the research is essentially useless or misleading. Academics have an enormous financial incentive to engage in dubious laboratory research. This has even prompted major scientific journals like Nature to ask “Is Science Broken?”…
Flashback 2007: Exercise Causes Global Warming – Walking to the Shops ‘Damages Planet More Than Going By Car’
As reported by the Times Online Saturday in a piece hysterically titled “Walking to the Shops ‘Damages Planet More Than Going By Car'” (grateful h/ts to all NBers and readers who forwarded this article for consideration, emphasis added throughout):
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.
Absolutely amazing. But there was more:
The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.
“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”
Now, just imagine where this insanity could go:
- Gymnasiums and athletic clubs closed to slow global warming
- Jogging made illegal to slow global warming
- Golf banned to slow global warming
- All organized sporting events including amateur, collegiate and professional banned to slow global warming.
Is it becoming obvious the amount of control environmentalists seek over personal behavior all in the name of global warming?…
A group of executives who want to fight global warming have published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.
ETC’s goal is to “accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development” and limit global warming. ETC’s report comes out as the Trump administration considers whether or not to stay party to the Paris agreement, which went into effect in 2016.
Trump has ordered Obama-era policies meant to comply with the Paris agreement be rolled back, but the White House is mulling whether or not to pull out the agreement altogether. European countries and energy companies have been pressuring the White House to stay party to Paris.
Royal Dutch Shell, for example, aided the pro-Paris faction of the Trump administration by publicly supporting continued U.S. participation in the United Nations deal. Shell is a major producer of natural gas, which the company bills as a way to fight global warming.…
Study in Nature: 21 climate models find climate change ‘may increase net recreational physical activity in U.S.’ by 2099
Here’s abstract of Nature Human Behavior paper on global warming predictions of exercise rates in next 40-80 years.
Regular physical activity supports healthy human functioning1,
Warmist Slate Mag. Slams ‘March for Science’: ‘A bizarre cultural phenomenon…liberals engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art’
But here’s the problem: Little of what I observed dissuades me from my baseline belief that, even among the sanctimonious elite who want to own science (and pwn anyone who questions it), most people have no idea how science actually works. The scientific method itself is already under constant attack from within the scientific community itself and is ceaselessly undermined by its so-called supporters, including during marches like those on Saturday. In the long run, such demonstrations will do little to resolve the myriad problems science faces and instead could continue to undermine our efforts to use science accurately and productively.
Let’s start with my contention that most “pro-science” demonstrators have no idea what they were demonstrating about. Being “pro-science” has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it. On any given day, many of my most “woke” friends are quick to post and retweet viral content about the latest on what Science (and I’m capitalizing this on purpose) “says,” or what some studies “prove.” But on closer look, much of what gets shared and bandied about is sheer bullshit and is diagnostic of one thing only: The state of science (and science literacy) in this country, and most of the planet for that matter, is woefully bad. For example, the blog IFLScience (IFL stands for “I f—ing love”) seems singularly committed to undermining legitimately good science half the time, while promoting it the other half—which, scientifically speaking, is a problem. Here’s a neat one that relays news about a study that suggested that beer hops may protect against liver disease. I’ll be sure to mention that to the next alcoholic with hepatitis and cirrhosis that I treat. To date that article has been shared 41,600 times. Very few of those readers, I should mention, were mice, though the research was carried out in, you guessed it, mice. (And of course, this type of coverage is not refined to cleverly named blogs.)
By Chris White
An editor of a Colorado newspaper argued that environmental activists could morally justify committing violent acts of terror on Americans in the fracking industry, similar to how President Donald Trump justified bombing Syria, in a brief email exchange Saturday with The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Boulder Daily Camera Executive Editor Kevin Kaufman believe citizens who support Trump’s decision to bomb Syria had no grounds to contest the idea that anti-fracking activists were justified blowing up oil and gas wells in the U.S. He told TheDCNF that the two issues are essentially one and the same.
“I suspect it was a violent act supported by both the right and left, but it also was one fundamentally based upon a moral question,” Kaufman wrote in email about Trump’s decision to strike a Syrian air base in response to a chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“So it’s ok for the U.S., currently under the leadership of a right-leaning president, to take violent action on moral grounds, but it is not ok for citizens of Boulder County to ask fellow citizens to consider even violent actions?” Kaufman asked.
Kaufman’s statement was in response to questions about whether it was appropriate for The Camera to publish a letter promoting violence against the fracking industry. Kaufman’s paper published a letter April 19 suggesting Colorado citizens have a moral obligation to destroy pipelines and eliminate oil jobs.
Editors altered the piece after publication, but left the writer’s basic thesis in place: violence may be the only way to prevent pipeline construction.
“If the oil and gas industry puts fracking wells in our neighborhoods, threatening our lives and our children’s lives, then don’t we have a moral responsibility to blow up wells and eliminate fracking and workers?” Andrew O’Connor wrote in a letter to the paper’s editors.
The piece was edited the following day to read “don’t we have a moral responsibility to take action to dissuade frackers from operating here?” The editorial staff included in the edits its reason for not retracting the letter entirely.
O’Connor’s piece is worthwhile, the editorial board noted, because it brings up philosophical ideas that are important to consider when discussing fracking.
“This letter was edited to delete references that may have been construed to expressly advocate violence or property destruction,” the editors wrote. “The Camera does not condone or endorse violence or property destruction of …
A prominent environmental justice activist claims he was “assaulted, roughed up, and detained” by a Washington, D.C., cop Saturday at the March For Science and his fellow marchers ignored it.
Reverend Lennox Yearwood claims he was detained while walking across the street to get to the science march. In a Huffington Post column recounting the incident, Yearwood claimed he was slammed against a food truck and accused of being “on drugs.”
Yearwood claims that because none of the nearby attendees of the March for Science stood up for him while he was being detained, the event shows the inherent racism of many participating in the march.
After being slammed into the food truck, five officers allegedly surrounded Yearwood then detained him. Once he was identified as a member of the clergy and a VIP at the march, the officers ran his identification for outstanding warrants and did not find anything. Yearwood was then allegedly released without being placed under arrest.…
Gutfeld criticized Nye for saying on a CNN panel that the network should not have allowed a global warming skeptic to join the debate.
“You can’t even have one scientist on to question a comedian who got his degree in mechanical engineering,” he said.
“He’s mocking skepticism which is the spine behind the scientific method.” Gutfeld added.
Gutfeld said the Earth Day marches held over the weekend would be better described as “march[es] for silence” rather than “march[es] for science.”…