Sen. Marco Rubio: Economy Shouldn’t Come at Expense of Rising Sea Levels

The junior senator from Florida admitted that while sea levels are rising, the economy shouldn’t come at its expense.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1051460791373828096

 

The junior senator from Florida appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper yesterday to respond to a new survey that claims that flooding will destroy one million Florida homes by the end of the century in wake of Hurricane Michael.

 

That report— titled “Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the Implications for US Coastal Real Estate“— was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists last week. They found that one million homes would be at risk of being flooded fat the end of the century. That’s pretty doom and gloom picture, no?

 

“Sea levels rise and changes in the climate, those are measurable. So I don’t think there is a debate whether that is happening … The secondary aspect of that is how much of that is due to human activity?” said Rubio.

 

He added, “No matter what we do, no matter what we do with laws, if tomorrow we stopped all — let’s say we went to all solar panels and did all that stuff, which is not realistic — this trend would still continue.”

 

He continued: “Look, Panama City looks like Homestead down here in South Florida after Andrew. What I saw there, I didn’t see any electricity polls standing, or any wires still up. So that’s going to have to be totally rebuilt. Telecommunications is still a challenge. Mexico Beach is wiped out, I mean literally flattened out. And then something I hope we don’t lose focus on – there are a lot of inland counties away from the coast, where there are a lot of older people, a lot of poor people, people that could not evacuate, even if they wanted to, living miles apart from each other in rural areas, who have been badly hit by this. And right now many of them are even cut off. They don’t have phones, the roads are blocked, they might even live off a dirt road. We’ve got to get to them too. That’s going to be the one area that I really, really focus on, because I think that’s where the dire need is also there. And they’re going to be the hardest people to identify and find. We still don’t have an accurate assessment of how many people we have cut off from everybody else.”

 

These comments come after the devastation caused by Hurricane Michael in Florida’s Panhandle.

 

What are your thoughts on Senator Rubio’s comments? Weigh in below.

Poll: 1/3 of Americans Pass Citizenship Test, Blame Climate Change for Cold War

Most respondents couldn’t answer basic questions about our history during the American Revolution and World War II.

 

A new survey commissioned by Lincoln Park Strategies found that only 36% of Americans could pass multiple choice test with questions drawn from the U.S. Citizenship Test, which has a passing score of 60, according to a national survey released today by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. The survey was administered by Lincoln Park Strategies.

 

“With voters heading to the polls next month, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential,” Woodrow Wilson Foundation President Arthur Levine said. “Unfortunately this study found the average American to be woefully uninformed regarding America’s history and incapable of passing the U.S. Citizenship Test. It would be an error to view these findings as merely an embarrassment. Knowledge of the history of our country is fundamental to maintaining a democratic society, which is imperiled today.”

 

Levine added, “Americans need to understand the past in order to make sense of a chaotic present and an inchoate future. History is both an anchor in a time when change assails us and a laboratory for studying the changes that are occurring. It offers the promise of providing a common bond among Americans in an era in which our divisions are profound and our differences threaten to overshadow our commonalities.”

  • Only 13% of respondents knew when the Constitution was ratified
  • Over 60% of respondents didn’t know which countries the U.S. fought against during World War II
  • 57% of respondents don’t know how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court
  • 24% of respondents correctly knew why colonists fought the British during the American Revolution
  • 12% percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War; 6 percent thought he was a Vietnam War general;
  • 2% of respondents said climate change caused the Cold War, despite them having general knowledge of it

They also noted the age disparity of respondents on how they answered questions accurately, saying,

Those 65 years and older scored the best, with 74 percent answering at least six in 10 questions correctly. For those under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed with the exam, with 81 percent scoring a 59 percent or lower.

The survey spoke with 1,000 respondents and had a margin of error at +/-3.5%.

These findings don’t come as a shock to me. In April, it was revealed that over 66% of Millennials don’t know what Auschwitz was. Many Americans, especially Millennials, think socialism is cool. Most Americans my age are clueless about our basic history, apart from the revisionist tale they are feed in high school and at universities.

This survey should be a clarion call to boost civics education, or else we are doomed as a society…

A New Odd Couple: Pope Francis and Jerry Brown

Pop Quiz: what does California governor Jerry Brown and Pope Francis have in common? No, it isn’t a trick question. “Nothing” is not the correct answer.

Just for the record, although Pope Francis is pictured on the left in the photo above, that isn’t Governor Moonbeam shown on the right. Recently, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (who knew such a thing existed?) held a three day workshop at the Vatican titled “Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Health”, a fact that inspires this very serious question…why?

Why on earth does Pope Francis seem far more concerned about the threat of climate change than say, radical Islamic terrorism? Shouldn’t we at least be as worried about the imminent threat of being murdered by a terrorist as we are about vague threats to the environment that may or may not come true over the next 100 years?

Pope Francis was quoted as saying this:

Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor, and causes millions of premature deaths. People take sick, for example, from breathing high levels of smoke from fuels used in cooking or heating. There is also pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general. Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.

Pope Francis and I apparently agree on the idea that we humans seem incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things. However, that may be the only opinion we share in common on the subject of climate change, and what humanity should do about it. At any rate, I’m absolutely certain that we should not be listening to Jerry Brown for “expert” advice on the subject of global warming.

This story reminds me of the infamous hole in the ozone layer that scientists briefly used during the 1980s to cause a sense of panic in the general public, warning that the use of chloroflourocarbons created “acid rains” that were slowly destroying the atmosphere and enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, gradually making the Earth uninhabitable. Fast forward 30 years, and amazingly, the “irreparable” hole in the ozone layer has somehow healed itself, in spite of science’s best and most dire predictions, and is now (by some “miracle”) approximately the same size it was in 1988.

Included in the introduction to the materials for the Vatican’s climate change workshop was this interesting paragraph:

Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning leads to increased risks of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, fires, severe storms, floods which in turn have major health effects. For example: a single heat wave event, which occurred in Europe in 2003, claimed 70000 lives; 250,000 excess deaths were attributed to droughts and famines during 2011-2012 in the horn of Africa. Tropical storm Haiyan claimed more than 7800 lives in the Philippines; heat waves in Pakistan and India lost at least 4000 people to the 2015 heat wave. While we cannot claim these extreme events were caused by anthropogenic climate changes, we know that the probability of exposure to extreme events is increasing significantly due to climate change. These extreme events affect the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

Notice how the “experts” admit that their litany of natural disasters cannot be attributed to climate change in the paragraph where they desperately attempt to link those same natural disasters to climate change. Besides, whatever happened to the idea that science and the church are supposed to be non-overlapping magisteria?

And why is the abnormal fear of climate change now considered a tenet of Catholic faith?

This question has also probably occurred to the reader by now: what does Jerry Brown have to do with the Pope and climate change? It turns out that Brown was invited to speak at this Vatican “workshop” on climate change, where he said that addressing the problem of climate change will not only require science, but a “religious commitment.”

In my opinion, it was a mistake for Pope Francis to invite Jerry Brown to speak at his workshop on climate change, where Brown suggested that the world needed to be brainwashed into believing in climate change and then “something” (higher taxes) could be done to solve the problem (even though experts have also said that we’ve already passed the point of no return).

Spending trillions of dollars to lower the earth’s temperature by only a fraction of a single degree might not provide the best return on investment, in fact.

Personally (assuming I had any power or authority within the Catholic church) I would strongly be opposed to anyone evangelizing a message saying that people should be brainwashed so they might believe in something they don’t. Pope Francis and Jerry Brown appear to have formed some sort of a new “Odd Couple” but unfortunately, this new act doesn’t seem to be a comedy.

We can’t even tell which of the two is supposed to be Felix Unger.

 

Actual Scientists School Bill Nye on Hurricanes

Bill Nye is a science guy. But, as the trope went for an old commercial, he isn’t a scientist, he just plays one on T.V. From time to time, Nye’s limited understanding of science can get him into trouble. One of those times was last week Nye talked about how global warming affected hurricanes.

On Radio Andy, a Sirius XM show, Nye told Dan Rather, “It’s the strength [of hurricanes] that is almost certainly associated with global warming.”

“Global warming and climate change are the same thing,” Nye said. “As the world gets warmer and there is more heat energy in the atmosphere, you expect storms to get stronger. You also expect ocean currents to not flow the way they always have and that will make some places cooler and some places warmer.”

“The more heat energy in the atmosphere strengthens the storms, Dan, that’s what you’d expect,” the science guy concluded.

Ryan Maue, a meteorologist whose Twitter bio also identifies him as a “think tanker” for the Cato Institute, took to Twitter to point out what should be obvious to a climate scientist, the fact that hurricanes draw their strength from the ocean not the atmosphere. “Bill Nye confuses the oceans with the atmosphere,” Maue tweeted, adding the hashtag, “#FakeScience.”

As most weather-watchers know, the ocean feeds hurricanes. They draw strength from warm tropical ocean water and grow while at sea. Once a hurricane makes landfall, the storm begins to weaken and dissipate, no matter how warm the atmosphere is.

That begs the question of whether global warming caused warmer ocean waters to feed the current crop of killer storms. Cliff Mass, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, says “no” on his blog.

“Hurricane Harvey developed in an environment in which temperatures were near normal in the atmosphere and slightly above normal in the Gulf,” Mass wrote. “The clear implication: global warming could not have contributed very much to the storm.”

“OK, let me go out on a limb,” Mass continues. “Let us assume that all of the .5 C warming of the Gulf was due to human-caused global warming.  That NONE of it was natural.  And that the air was warmed by the same amount. Using the scaling described above implies an increase of 3.5% in the extreme precipitation of this storm.  So, for places that received 30 inches, perhaps 1 inch resulted from global warming. Not much.  Immaterial regarding impacts or anything else.”

“The bottom line in this analysis is that both observations of the past decades and models looking forward to the future do not suggest that one can explain the heavy rains of Harvey by global warming, and folks that are suggesting it are poorly informing the public and decision makers,” Mass concludes.

NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory agrees in a statement on its website. “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity,” the agency points out.

NOAA’s statement does include a qualifier that climate change may cause worse storms in the future.  “Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario),” the statement notes. “This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.”

Nye did make a second point that was more valid. “The problem in the Southeast United States and Mexico is that these hurricanes are very powerful,” the science guy said, “and, as I say all the time, they are very expensive. We are all going to pay for Harvey. We are all going to pay for Irma one way or the other.”

Mass agrees here, saying, “What the media SHOULD be discussing is the lack of resilience of our infrastructure to CURRENT extreme weather.   Houston has had multiple floods the past few years and poor planning is a major issue.  When you put massive amounts of concrete and buildings over an historical swamp, water problems will occur if drainage and water storage is not engineered from the start.”

Hurricane Harvey, a category three storm, was not the strongest hurricane on record. The biggest problem was the that storm stalled over Houston rather than moving through quickly. This caused Houston’s Depression-era drainage system to overload. The area’s rapid growth and lack of planning have contributed to the problem.

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were very damaging, but there is no evidence that they were the result of climate change. In fact, the storms were weaker and less damaging that the category four hurricane that killed 12,000 people in Galveston, Texas. If you don’t remember that one, it is because it happened in 1900, long before the advent of global warming.

Eclipsing Predictions




While eclipse fever hasn’t quite done for science what Saturday Night Fever did for disco, it’s fair to say that yesterday’s celestial event has assumed its own special place in the public’s consciousness.  Millions of people across the country whipped out their x-ray specs at the same time and headed outside to witness the moon passing between the Earth and the sun, forgetting for a moment all the rancor and division that has grabbed the headlines lately, and joining together in the common realization that nobody could remember all the words to the last song on Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon.

The media, though, couldn’t just leave a tender moment alone, and insisted on trying to leverage everyone’s new fascination with astronomy into a propaganda blitz worthy of Baghdad Bob.  Take the New York Times, for example:



The last time I saw a tie-in attempt this bad, Kendall Jenner was throwing a can of Pepsi at the riot police.  Apparently the Times editors who green-lit this particular story have the same eye for content as the people who approved that Bill Nye “My Sex Junk” bit.  You get an A for effort guys, but in this case your reach exceeds your grasp just a tick.

Let’s go to the article itself for a taste, shall we?

Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.

Indeed we do, in large part because people tend to respond that way to authority figures–a fact known by the media, and reinforced by their news coverage.

So what predictions has climate science made, and have they come true?

The earliest, made by a Swede named Svante Arrhenius in 1897, was simply that the Earth would heat up in response to emissions. That has been proved: The global average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Celsius, or almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial change for a whole planet.

Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it?  And there is actually a grain of truth in this statement.  The only problem is that temperature increases have not kept pace with the rate of carbon emissions.  In plain English, this means that carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat nearly as effectively as climate scientists thought.

By the 1960s and ’70s, climate scientists were making more detailed predictions. They said that as the surface of the Earth warmed, the temperature in the highest reaches of the atmosphere would fall. That is exactly what happened.

In the 1970s, climate scientists were also predicting a new ice age.  I guess it pays to cover all your bets.

The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.

At the same time, Antarctic sea ice has reached record high levels–something for which these same climate scientists have a tough time accounting.  As to rainstorm predictions, they also predicted increases in hurricanes, tornadoes and other violent weather.  So far, we haven’t gotten any more twisters than usual and the United States hasn’t been hit by a major hurricane since Wilma back in 2005.

Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.

Sure, in the way that a guy who flunked the bar nine times out of ten has established his ability to practice law.  He might win a case here and there, but you probably don’t want him defending you against a capital charge.

What all this scientific authoritarianism doesn’t tell you is that the planet’s climate is an almost incomprehensively complex system.  It’s not just that we don’t even fully understand all the variables that affect how the climate changes;  we don’t even have any way to determine the variables we don’t know about.  And yet, somehow, there are scientists who would tell you that the time for debate is over–that the planet is heating up, it’s an existential threat, and that human activity is the definitive cause.  In this, they’re a lot like central planners who think that they have the expertise to run an economy consisting of millions of individuals engaging in millions of transactions every single day.  There is simply no way to account for all that information, much less direct it.

Compared to all that, predicting eclipses is easy.  And a lot more accurate.

Al Gore Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is…Well, 3% of It, Anyway




Former Senator and Vice President Al Gore is quite the environmental crusader. For years he has loved to hector Americans about how the modern Western lifestyle is allegedly destroying the planet – including the insufferable documentary An Inconvenient Truth and its forthcoming sequel, and his tireless efforts have made him a hero to the radical environmental movement.

So you’d think that someone who has campaigned so hard for a green lifestyle with such urgency would put his money where his mouth is, right? Well, that’s where you’d be wrong. Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research has just released a report sharing some statistics about Gore’s power usage that reveal mind-blowing hypocrisy.



For starters, let’s look at Gore’s home. He lives in a beautiful, century-old mansion in Nashville’s tony Belle Meade neighborhood. It’s a 10,070 square foot home on two acres in the eighth richest neighborhood in America. In 2007, right after Gore won his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, we learned that the home used a whopping 20 times the electricity of the average American house.

That expose prompted Gore to undertake some green renovations to the property. He spent a conservatively estimated quarter million dollars on environmentally friendly upgrades that included solar panels and the necessary equipment to convert the sun’s rays into power, along with energy efficient windows, a rainwater collection system, special green insulation, and a new heating and air conditioning system.

None of it made enough of a difference. The solar panel system only provides enough energy to power the home for less than three weeks a year, and the Gore mansion still consumes about 20 times the average. In fact, after the upgrades, Gore burns through 10,000 kilowatts a year more than before he spent all that money on a green makeover.

You may also think that Gore lives in such a large house because he has a large family, right? Umm…about that:

In 2010, Gore announced that he and wife Tipper were divorcing after 40 years of marriage. According to media speculation, Tipper likely lives in the $8.9 million California home the couple purchased weeks before the separation. The Gores have four grown children who no longer live at home. That leaves the former vice president as presumably the only occupant of the home, making his energy consumption even more staggering.

Gore also owns at least two other homes, a pied-à-terre in San Francisco’s St. Regis Residence Club and a farm house in Carthage, Tennessee.

That’s right. Al Gore likely lives alone in a home that burns through 20 times the energy of yours, and it’s not his only house! Let that sink in for a minute.

Since the solar panels don’t do much to provide power to Gore’s mansion, where does the rest of the energy come from? Nashville Electric Service gets its energy from the Tennessee Valley Authority. Gore’s massive power bills to the NES include $432 per month to a green energy program, but the vast majority of the power flowing into the mansion isn’t “renewable” by any stretch.

The NES breaks down its energy sources like this:

39.8% comes from nuclear power plants, 25.8% is generated at coal–fired power plants, 21.5% is produced by burning natural gas, 9.7% is powered by hydroelectric dams and just 3.2% is from wind and solar sources.

The bottom line? Gore isn’t doing much of anything to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to the electricity at his Nashville home.

In truth, the energy pouring into Gore’s house is the electricity that all TVA customers receive – the majority of which comes from nuclear and coal–fired power plants. Only 3% of the electricity going into Gore’s home comes from a renewable source such as solar or wind power.

Some truths really are inconvenient, aren’t they?

The New Environmental Puritans Don’t Want You to Enjoy Your Summer





Summertime – most everybody loves it. It’s the perfect time of the year to go to the beach or the mountains (or both). Sure, the heat can be oppressive, but we can beat it with the modern miracles of air conditioning and swimming pools. Summer is also a great time of year for hanging out with family and friends. On Sundays after church, my family gets together and grills out by the pool.

But there’s one group of new Puritans who don’t want you to enjoy your summer – environmentalists. That’s right, the climate change folks want to drain the fun out of your life for the sake of the planet. A new study from Sweden’s Lund University suggests the measures we must take to rid the globe of that dastardly CO2 – and it’s going to drain the fun from your summer.

Want to drive to the beach, the lake, or the mountains this summer? Don’t – you need to live car-free. And don’t even think about a vacation that requires air travel.

Thinking of slapping some hamburgers on the grill? Sorry, you need to give up meat and switch to a plant-based diet.

Love relaxing in the air conditioning? Too bad, because the A/C has to go.

Looking forward to family time with the kids? We’ve gotta talk, because the number one climate-saving act you can undertake is to have fewer kids. (Parents, I’ll give you a minute to decide which of the kids you want to bump off.)

Other suggestions include forgoing mowing the grass, keeping chickens in the yard (free range, of course), and hanging the laundry out to dry – not to mention writing letters to corporations and elected officials and getting involved in environmental causes. Yes, exciting summers await!

As Julie Kelly puts it over at National Review:

So your life, according to the Merchants of Misery, should look something like this: stuck at home without a car, washing laundry in cold water and then clipping it on a clothesline while chasing down chickens and preparing locally grown vegetables for dinner. It’ll be just like Little House on the Prairie!

The people who make up the radical environmentalist movement truly are the new Puritans. They want to strip away all of our modern conveniences and take us back to the days of the pioneers, if not further back. The 21st century Luddites believe that the only way to ensure our future is to live in the past.

It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: the environmental movement is based on the assumption that God does not exist; therefore the planet becomes a god. Instead of enjoying the planet we’ve been blessed with and simply being good stewards of it, the climate change crowd thinks it’s up to us to turn back the clock on innovation and convenience in order to protect their idol.

My advice to you as summer winds down: enjoy it and make the most of it. Have a great time swimming, grilling, and traveling with all of your kids, and make more of them if you want. Thank God for the amazing gift of His creation, and help take care of it, of course, as you enjoy the benefits that modern technology affords us.

Don’t let the new Puritans tell you what to do, and by all means, don’t let them steal your fun this summer!

Amelia Earhart Photo Debunked, But History Channel May Have Debunked Global Warming Concern

The History Channel special on Amelia Earhart this week fell flat with respect to finding the fate of the famed aviatrix, but, in addition to discrediting The History Channel, the special may have also helped debunk a major concern of climate change alarmists. The evidence for the survival of Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan was largely based on photograph. Ironically, it is a History Channel photograph that, if accurate, causes problems for the climate change crowd.

The “lost evidence” for Earhart’s survival consisted of a photograph that showed people who resembled Earhart and Noonan on a dock on Jaluit Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The History Channel’s assumption, based on the resemblance of the people in the photo to Noonan and Earhart, was that the pair had survived their last flight and were taken prisoner by the Japanese and later executed.

In a post on July 9, Japanese military history blogger Kota Yamano challenged the History Channel claim. Yamano said that an internet search for the picture revealed that it was taken too early to be Earhart and Noonan. The picture was originally published in a travelogue, “The Ocean’s ‘Lifeline’: The Condition of Our South Seas,” in 1935, two years before the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan.

“The photo was the 10th item that came up,” Yamano said in an interview with The Guardian. “I was really happy when I saw it. I find it strange that the documentary makers didn’t confirm the date of the photograph or the publication in which it originally appeared. That’s the first thing they should have done.”

There were other problems with The History Channel theory as well. The Daily Beast points out that when Charles Lindbergh made an emergency landing in Japan in 1931, he was given a hero’s welcome. The Daily Beast also cites a Japanese book from 1982 that detailed the story of a crewman on the Japanese navy ship in the picture. According to the testimony of Japanese veterans, the Japanese navy was instructed to join the search and rescue effort for Earhart. The ship’s log contains no mention of Earhart or Noonan.

Earhart and Noonan disappeared on July 2, 1937. At that time, relations between the US and Japan were still good. The attack on Pearl Harbor was four years away. Even though fighting in the Pacific predated America’s entry into World War II, the region was still largely peaceful at the time. Japan’s war with China began five days after Earhart’s disappearance with a battle between Japanese and Chinese forces at Marco Polo bridge in Beijing. At the time, Earhart disappeared, the Japanese had not motive to keep her rescue a secret.

The theory that Earhart went off course on her way to Howland Island and wound up crash landing in the Marshall Islands also strained credulity. The Marshall Islands are 1,000 miles away from Earhart’s intended target. To end up there, Earhart and Noonan would have had to fly to the vicinity of Howland Island, realize that they were lost, and then, low on fuel and disoriented in bad weather, fly past numerous other islands for another thousand miles.

On the other hand, Steve Milloy of Junk Science claims that a graphic used in The History Channel’s documentary undermines the argument for rising sea levels due to climate change. The graphic shows Mili Atoll, an island in the Marshall Islands, with markings that say “area between blue lines was shore in 1937.” The blue lines on the photo show a forested area in 2017. If the History Channel photo is accurate, Mili Atoll has grown since 1937 instead of getting smaller due to rising seas.

The History Channel documentary does point out that coral islands can change shape over time. A 2015 report by New Scientist found that, even if sea levels rise, many islands are rising faster.

If the History Channel expose’ was truly a bust on the scale of Geraldo’s unveiling of Al Capone’s vault, what really happened to Earhart and Noonan? Sometimes the simplest and most obvious explanation is also the correct one. The pair were using primitive navigation methods to Howland Island, a small, isolated speck of land. The Pacific is a very big ocean and Earhart and Noonan are most likely at the bottom of it.