GLOBAL WARMING ~ IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING CHICKEN LITTLE?

Fire And Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
– Robert Frost

Climate Change is the rage! We must control the climate or we all will die!

If you look at the literature, the claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause. We are supposedly over 50% responsible for this predicted – catastrophic change.

Our global warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the past several years. Not to worry, every time there’s a hot spell somewhere, a flood, tornado, hurricane or other weather phenomena, the “Warm-ists” insist, humans are the cause of these disasters. Even further claims, drought, and wild fires, are also caused by our human emissions of CO2. Oh, and cow farts. Cows emit methane and they’re contributing to this problem, therefore, according to some, we must eliminate meat. Vegetarians have been telling us for years, they have the superior diet.

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

It turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

Now what? If we challenge their public pronouncements from yonder scientific endowed throne, we are labeled, climate deniers. “Why don’t I like climate deniers? It is NOT because they don’t understand the climate sciences; it is because they don’t WANT to understand the climate sciences.” ~ Gerald Kutney-Ph.D. Chm.- politics of climate change pundit & author.

So, there you have it. Case closed, you’re not supposed to have any other thoughts or explanations because we’re smarter and know stuff.

Maybe I should start with removing some assumptions that lead the arguments, but do nothing to get at the truth.

Any topic deemed so sacred that it can’t be questioned, needs further examination. This control from authority or power must be questioned or it wouldn’t need this level of authority to suppress.

No one that seriously is interested in climadeception begins with grants of moneyte science, or those who read the information, deny that climate is changing, and that it will continue to change.

There are two fundamental questions we should be asking among many more peripheral dilemmas.

1 – Is the data fundamentally correct? That’s to say, climate change is headed in a direction of planetary concern? Are the computer models we’re using accurate enough to make such predictions?

The United Nations IPCC publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval of the published review of which they are supposedly authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy.

2- If humans are the catalyst to create global climate warming, then what can we do that’s truly going to affect a positive outcome?

Howard Bloom became interested in science, especially cosmology and microbiology, as early as the age of ten. By age sixteen Bloom was working as an assistant researching the immune system at the Roswell Park Memorial Research Cancer Institute. Bloom graduated from New York University and, at the age of twenty-five, veered from his scientific studies to work as an editor for a rock magazine. Bloom would go on to found one of the largest public relations firms in the music industry.

Some groups claim humanity is plunging headlong towards catastrophe and possibly even a future in which a tiny band of survivors cluster around the last remaining habitable territory near the poles.

Other groups claim that climate change will not be too bad so there is no need to stop using fossil fuels. They point to beneficial effects such as ‘global greening’ in which plant growth is boosted by the extra carbon in the air.

Norway is banning cars from it’s capital.

The Sea Lawyers Are at it, Again

A 2016 article was recently posted by a friend who opposes personal ownership of firearms.

“What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you” <- link will take you to opinion article.

The title alone implies anyone that wants the ability to protect themselves and or their family with a firearm, must be a fanatic.

The right to speak freely, the right to protect your life or property, the right to not self-incriminate, the right of habeas corpus, were understood by those who authored this key document, as fundamental to keeping a democracy from being turned into tyranny of the masses or by a select powerful few. Human behavior is the same now as it was then, and they did their best to protect “inalienable rights.” See this article for further explanation of the alternate use of the words. Are our rights ‘inalienable’ or ‘unalienable’?

The author of the article misses two key things written in the second amendment, and the other not mentioned whatsoever; Hamilton was shot and died at the hands of Aaron Burr. Both men freely entered a pistol dual to “protect their honor”. Whatever misgivings Alexander Hamilton may have had about an individual’s right to bear arms didn’t change the course of his life or his demise.

As a bit more of a history lesson about Alexander Hamilton, he was a prominent centralized authority proponent. Among his many ideas, he proposed this at the Constitutional Convention; to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon “good behavior” and subject to removal for corruption or abuse.

He secretly communicated with at that time, “enemies of the state” in order to further the push toward a more monarchistic form of government. Don’t believe me, then please allow the words of a contemporary to explain.

James Madison, known as the author of the Constitution, vehemently opposed at every opportunity Alexander Hamilton’s efforts to create a despotic central government. Madison once remarked that Hamilton had a hidden agenda “of the glories of a United States woven together by a system of tax collectors,” who would be ruthless in both their collection and punishment efforts. Madison authored the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, specifically as an answer to Hamilton’s urge to create a national army which would enforce tax laws and subject the state citizens to the tyrannical rule of the central government. Hamilton dreamed of a large military to enforce the will of federal tax collectors, district attorneys, and judges on the populace, and to enforce unpopular laws.

So, let’s pick through that which was ignored in order for the author, Brett Arends, to create a false interpretation of the Second amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note the comma, for those that don’t understand this basic usage, it’s use is to separate coordinated independent clauses. Perhaps that’s a misunderstood definition on language.

More modern legal arguments over the definition of those few words are, collective rights of government vs. individual rights. I refer you to a link that describes this in more detail –> Live Science

“The first ten amendments of the Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. It was formalized for the protection of natural rights of liberty and property.” “This bill is an important constituent of American Law as well as the government, and symbolizes the freedom and culture of the United States of America.” The Constitution was written to be a more concise and centralized view of government authority. It replaced the Articles of Confederation. At it’s core, it states these rights are not granted by government, but are inalienable rights of all citizens. This means the government was formed to protect the individual from tyranny of the state as well as foreign powers.

I’ll end this post with Alexander Hamilton’s own words, because he too understood the balance necessary to prevent tyranny.
“ .. if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

Hamilton delineates his vision not only of a free people bearing arms for the common defense, but also for the protection of liberty. It was intended by the framers of our Constitution that a free people be armed. Therefore it follows, those who wish the people disarmed also wish them enslaved by their own government.

Burr–Hamilton duel, from a painting by J. Mund

History has repeatedly shown, the rights & liberties of people are not preserved or protected solely by the pen, but through the power of the sword.

[ —————- ]

I’m Confused

Pres. elect Barack Obama with former Pres. George W. Bush

After yesterday’s Robert Mueller testimony, I have many unanswered questions.

We’ve become accustomed to some degree or another with patterns, habits, and societal cues. These may be for practical reasons, such as which side of the road to drive on, or saying excuse me for accidentally bumping into someone.

Can we go our own way, yet all be going the same way? What is it that drives people, as if they’re cattle to follow miscues, false rumors, and the foolishness of partisanship without merit?

Among the many times we’ve collectively witnessed the baying hounds of radical partisanship, who attempt to unseat a President, they insist that Donald Trump couldn’t have fairly won the 2016 Presidential election over their anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton.

It’s beyond any reasonable limit to pursue something that began from a circulated and purposefully leaked, false dossier. From that, a FISA warrant was issued that began this long dive down a rabbit hole of all too apparent nonsense. If you’re unable to see this for what it is, then you too have been sucked into the vortex of political Kabuki theater.

The Mueller Report was to be the final nail in the coffin of Donald Trump. Instead, after yesterday’s public hearing, which had Robert Mueller come forward to testify about a report he said was sufficient unto itself. On one hand, it basically said, there’s no conclusive evidence to prove Trump colluded with the Russians. He left the door swinging when his report suggested, their investigation couldn’t exonerate him either.

“Mueller said at a May press conference in Washington that the report his office released following the probe into Russian 2016 election meddling was tantamount to his testimony. His lengthy report found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election, but did list 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice by the president during the probe. Mueller also announced his office was closing up shop at the news conference.”

former FBI director, Mueller appeared disoriented during testimony

“The Democrats who lead the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in U.S. House of Representatives decided to subpoena Mueller to testify, announcing on June 25 that the former FBI head would appear before lawmakers in open session July 17. The date was later changed to July 24.”

If you don’t find the person guilty, doesn’t that conclude, innocence?

“Mueller spent two years & about $35 million on an exhaustive investigation that did not conclude that the president was not guilty of some form of criminality.”

The whole absurd, convoluted result was perfectly summarized in Mueller’s oracular pronouncement at his press conference on May 29: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Perhaps there’s nothing I can say which changes opinions, but my understanding of the legal system is, we’re innocent until proven guilty. A lack of evidence suggests the person is innocent, not some other convoluted outcome.

Twisted judicial logic?

Some see Donald Trump as a self-indulgent sybarite, not as a statesman. None the less he has attempted to find ways to bridge the gulf between the US and North Korea, chosen a contentious but successful path to get the NATO partners to pay more of their financial burden, and lead the nation to greater prosperity and lowest unemployment numbers, in decades.

Now, assuming the original accusations were well founded, then we must ask, who was in charge of national security, prevention of espionage, as well as ensuring fair and accurate elections, without interference from foreign powers, in 2016?

Above all that, we were hearing speeches from Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, that our elections were fair, honest, and accurate. They said this in 2014, 2015, and 2016. What changed? Weren’t they the ones in charge?

The Republicans weren’t any more immune to this radical partisanship. We saw this carried out to the extreme with President Barack Obama. Donald Trump led the parade of fools, claiming Obama was born in a foreign country and the Hawaii birth certificate was a fake. From month to month an Arizona Sheriff as well as Trump claimed they had conclusive evidence Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen. That wasn’t they only constant accusation, but certainly one of the most ridiculous.

This whole potpourri of inanity needs to come to a conclusion, and a end. It’s time the American people quit acting like a collection of ‘Stepford Wives’, and recognize they’re being played.