tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64481491627764565692024-03-13T06:24:09.904-04:00Skeptic's CornerJerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.comBlogger2350125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-78261899725626709832018-01-01T12:23:00.002-05:002018-01-01T12:25:17.348-05:00And the heat goes on<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zQol-ZMkTxc/WkpumOH2YiI/AAAAAAAA3Zw/N5P71eLe2WAp6lInICBa2J_kFOUgiPMyACLcBGAs/s1600/DSYhdpxXUAEkXeJ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="960" height="250" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zQol-ZMkTxc/WkpumOH2YiI/AAAAAAAA3Zw/N5P71eLe2WAp6lInICBa2J_kFOUgiPMyACLcBGAs/s400/DSYhdpxXUAEkXeJ.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-52322112201528648512014-12-01T01:12:00.001-05:002014-12-01T01:12:28.619-05:00Global Warming: The Play-Doh theory<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.3333339691162px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Global Warming: The Play-Doh theory</h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.3333339691162px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The climate change cult are like spoiled children playing with the global warming theory to fit any need</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_227056" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/play-doh.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Climate Cult's Play-doh Theory |Photo Credit Flicker" class="size-full wp-image-227056" height="499" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/play-doh.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Climate Cult’s Play-doh Theory |Photo Credit Flicker</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The scientific philosopher <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Sir Karl Popper</a> who literally wrote the book on<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"> empirical falsification</a> of the scientific method observed:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Throughout its tortured existence, the global warming theory’s promoters have consistently and on a regular basis sought to disprove this common sense observation. The climate cult never found any situation that does not prove their theory. The global warming theory is as malleable as Play-Doh.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Whenever a previously held “settled science” conclusion is falsified by actual physical events or observation, the cult simply morphs new revelations to fit the theory. This may mean modifying the theory to fit current circumstance, re-calibrating the theory down without re-calibrating the dire hyperbole, or simply embracing current circumstances as being “consistent with” the theory.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
When North America descended into winter, weeks prior to its official start date which was just a continuation of the past few years of colder than “normal” conditions earlier than normal, the cult just modified the narrative to fit the inconvenient conditions.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This habit of selective adaptation of the theory is why it is always important to remember what the theory actually called for prior to the modification. In the case of recent colder temperatures earlier than normal we need only go back to the<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=353" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> 2007 IPCC report</a> which plainly defined what “global warming” was going to cause:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">milder winters</span></em> (see Table 3-10).</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the above mentioned<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=154#tab310" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> table 3-10</a> the IPCC explained how sure they were of their forecast for warmer winters.</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.3333339691162px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><i>Read my <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-play-doh-theory/#hceO1yDfjYvKKC7f.99">entire articl</a>e at Broadside News</i></span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-74854485462281948612014-09-24T13:39:00.002-04:002014-09-24T13:39:19.962-04:00Global warming and the new robber baronsFROM-<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-new-robber-barons/#Q6xKZ4EhP6Zlg6LK.99">BBN</a><br />
<br />
<div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Perhaps the global warming theory’s greatest hypocrisy is using anti-capitalism to turn a profit.</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_135168" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Gore-at-Climate-Change-March-AP.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="AL Gore| PHOTO CREDIT Brietbart News" class="wp-image-135168 size-full" height="563" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Gore-at-Climate-Change-March-AP.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
AL Gore| PHOTO CREDIT Britbart News</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There is no shortage of hypocrisy tied to the man-made global warming meme in fact the entire “movement” is perhaps the greatest example of hubris ever inflicted on humanity. It is not even necessary to dig into the details of the agenda to see this arrogant stupidity on display, the actors are more than willing to parade their false piety through the streets for the world to marvel at.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The current poster child for the “movement” is the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who appropriately enough is best known for flying the bow of the Titanic. This of course qualifies him to lead a sinking movement as the<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2Fquiz%2F2014%2Fsep%2F23%2Funited-nations-messenger-peace-goodwill-ambassador-leonardo-dicaprio-celebrities-quiz&ei=-boiVJPAKoikyASX_YHAAw&usg=AFQjCNGOpbVcaJquD4izjBf00juBKv3sTg&sig2=hY2MywVqEkWVkkuIQ-94hg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> designated</a> UN’s Messenger of Peace when he is not riding the waves to the World Cup in a yacht owned and paid for by a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766871/Leonardo-DiCaprio-s-climate-change-hypocrisy-As-Hollywood-star-lectures-U-N-MailOnline-reveals-jetset-lifestyle-includes-19-flights-world-year-borrowing-mega-yacht-owned-oil-billionaire.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">fossil fuel enriched</a> UAE billionaire.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is fitting that DiCaprio should live such an hypocritical lifestyle as he seeks to unseat the Godfather of all hypocrisy: the Tipperless Al Gore. Gore, who famously added to his activist-generated millions by selling his profitless TV network to a nation whose sole existence is derived from pumping “bubbly crude” from the sands of the Middle East, was also in attendance at the freak show “people’s” parade on Saturday – well at least until he <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/22/Al-Gore-Leaves-Climate-March-in-Chevy-Suburban-SUV" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">exited stage far left</a> in his giant gas guzzling SUV.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As the marchers disembarked this weekend from their thousands of chariots of <a busses="" climate="" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exhaust+spewing+busses&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS515US515&oq=exhaust+spewing+busses&aqs=chrome..69i57.9293j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#q=people" march="" s="" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">exhaust spewing busses</a> the entire affair was as disconnected from reality as the theory that reportedly spawned it, which in itself is a deception<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">. The “scientific” theory did not create the movement, the movement created the scientific theory.</em> Anti-capitalism not the plant fertilizer carbon dioxide is the precursor to the “man-made” global warming theory</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><i>Read entire<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-new-robber-barons/#Q6xKZ4EhP6Zlg6LK.99"> article </a>here</i></span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-44183106726033656972014-09-22T00:01:00.000-04:002014-09-22T00:01:01.267-04:00The global warming theory is bleeding outFROM-<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-theory-bleeding/#zZC77G5R7R4toC06.99">BBN</a><br />
<br />
<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><br /></header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Global warming alarmists are running out of sharks to jump and the world can’t help but notice</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_135006" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Daniels-Woods.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Daniel's Woods|Photo Credit JD Brown" class="wp-image-135006 size-full" height="563" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Daniels-Woods.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Daniel’s Woods|Photo Credit JD Brown</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
When a scientific theory is based upon false conclusions and incorrect assumptions inevitably all that flows from it will stray further and further from reality creating the need for even more outlandish propositions to sustain the initial assumption. History is full of false or ignorant scientific conclusions leading to disastrous results.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In December of 1799 a relatively healthy George Washington contracted what by today’s standards would be considered a minor case of pneumonia. He and his three attending physicians basically “bled” himself to the point that his weakened condition killed him. None of the learned men including the “Father” of our country believed that they were doing anything but adhering to the “consensus” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">best practice</a> for treating his illness.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #252525;">Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluid were regarded as “</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" title="Humorism">humors</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #252525;">” that had to remain in proper balance to maintain health. It is claimed to have been the most common </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" title="Medicine">medical</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #252525;"> practice performed by surgeons from antiquity until the late 19th century, a span of almost 2,000 years</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Today we look at practices such as “bleeding” as being akin to witchcraft.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Modern day learned men have reached the conclusion that the Earth’s systems also exist in a delicate balance which must be maintained lest we throw it into irreparable chaos. This is how it is possible for a scientific community to decide that a small amount of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will set the world ablaze with ever more dire consequences.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As their beliefs grows less sustainable due to reality trumping their theory they must grasp at ever more outlandish reasons for the failure of their beliefs. Perhaps the best example of this “grasping at straws” approach to science was recently<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> expressed by </a> Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there. Global warming has certainly not gone away.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Global warming has not stopped, according to Shepherd, it has just gone to a place where conveniently it can not be measured. It is like asking the dealer for the new Ferrari based on money in the bank nobody has access to or can prove is there; and this is science?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The Czech physicist Luboš Motl has an <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/07/salon-agw-cause-confined-to-left-wing.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">excellent description</a> of where the climate change cult finds itself as their theory crumbles around them.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The people believing in the climate hysteria have become so irrational about so many things that they’re ready to abandon certain beliefs even if they represent the foundations of what they have been previously saying about the essence of the world for many decades! When you think about it, what really matters isn’t whether they are left-wing or right-wing. What matters is that they are obsessed by this particular incoherent network of implausible assertions about the man-made carbon dioxide, the climate, and the hypothetical consequences of tiny changes of the temperature that may occur. The alarmists’ opinions don’t really have to agree with their scientific knowledge; they don’t have to agree with the most general philosophical framework that they used to hold dear. This harmony isn’t necessary because they have switched to the climate hysteria as the new #1 foundation of their belief system. The climate orthodoxy has become as important for them as the Islamic terrorists’ reading of the Quran is for these terrorists. Everything else is secondary.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The multitude of excuses for the pause in global warming which often times contradict the very foundation for the theory itself is proof of what Motl is saying, which is that climate change hysteria is now far more important than the scientific theory itself. I would argue that it always has been.</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">Read entire<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-theory-bleeding/#zZC77G5R7R4toC06.99"> article at Brenner Brief</a></span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-3135173116894373912014-08-21T15:11:00.002-04:002014-08-21T15:11:31.866-04:00Ignoring and ‘explaining’ the pause in global warming<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
While the climate cult continues the drumbeat of doom, they still cannot explain why global warming has “paused”</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pause-button.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="pause-button" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-90268" height="452" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pause-button.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: auto; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Back in their glory days of 2007 the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report on global warming. Here is what they had to say about the short-term outlook on global temperatures:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected</span> for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} …</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So the IPCC unequivocally claimed that their models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. To put that in perspective according to the IPCC the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
That was their projection. They even went so far as to maintain that there was already <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">so much</em> CO2 in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase. Which is telling yet irrelevant since they also knew that CO2 <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">was not</em> being maintained at 2000 levels. At the time of the IPCC’s 2007 report atmospheric <a href="http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/scripps-co2-data-mauna-loa-observatory.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">CO2 levels </a>had increased from 369.14 ppm in January of 2000 to 382.49 by January of 2007.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
How do you square that official projection with this <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26228" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">statement</a> by Kevin Trenberth a lead author of that report who in 2009 wrote, “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth was not talking about a one or two-year blip in the global warming narrative, he was talking about what was then over a decade long slowdown in global warming and which now has reached a 17 year “hiatus.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is obvious that the “scientists” who for decades were promoting the theory of man-made global warming knew that it wasn’t (warming) while they promoted the idea that it was. At least not anywhere near the “catastrophic” levels they want us to believe.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Between 1998 and 2012 global temperatures increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from earlier warming by 0.13 C. So not only did the globe not warm as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In 2013 as it became increasingly obvious that global warming was not indeed happening and the scientific branch of the climate cult frantically began<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> to make excuses </a>for their failed projections and some in the cult were feeling, well misled.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
David Shukman, Science editor at the BBC and a lifelong member of the cult who for years vociferously and without hesitation had promoted the idea that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide were a harm to the planet <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23409404" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">wrote</a> the following (emphasis added):</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">This is new</span> – at least to me. It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">But I’ve never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But our jilted cultist went even further. Not only did he complain about this lack of “transparency” by his fellow members of the cult he actually hinted at the possibility that the foundation for their well crafted belief structure might be flawed.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But what about another possibility – <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">that the calculations are wrong</span>?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">What if the climate models – <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">which are the very basis for all discussions</em> of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Leading up to the great admission that global warming had paue, nowhere in all the released studies or countless press releases had there been any mention of a “pause” or future pause in global warming. All the charts released showed a linear rise in temperatures corresponding to increased CO2 emissions....</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Read entire <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/ignoring-explaining-pause-global-warming/#BxDI84xU8Vyj3mzo.99">article at BBN</a></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-84264702325556483942014-08-15T17:51:00.000-04:002014-08-15T17:51:00.176-04:00Climate change: the null hypothesisFROM-<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-null-hypothesis/">BBN</a><br />
<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Despite the fact that the globe has not warmed in over a decade the climate change “cause” marches on</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_81152" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/United-Nations-Climate-Change-Conference.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="United Nation's Climate Change Conference|Photo Credit Flicker" class="size-full wp-image-81152" height="500" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/United-Nations-Climate-Change-Conference.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
United Nation’s Climate Change Conference | Photo Credit Flickr</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One of the reasons I titled my column on climate change “Global warming and common sense” was that when you apply common sense to almost any story or proposition of the global warming narrative it begins to fall apart, it makes no sense.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
All you have to do to see how out of whack the narrative is, is to understand the prostitution of what is referred to as the <a href="https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">null hypothesis</a>.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
From the beginning in the global warming narrative this common statistical and scientific practice was turned on its head. The”null” hypothesis when it comes to man-made global warming would be that the warming we were experiencing at the end of the twentieth century was natural. The scientists and activist who blamed the warming on fossil fuel use were proposing the “alternative” hypothesis.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But almost immediately the climate change cult was able to flip this and make their version of man-made the “null” and “natural” climate change the alternative. For proof of this it is no more difficult than reading the charter of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> defines its role</a> as:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change</span>, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This statement which created the IPCC, is from 1988. I am sure that many people have the misconception that the IPCC was established and operates to <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">prove </span>man-made global warming, but that is not the case. The IPCC began with the “null hypothesis” that there was man-made global warming and more importantly that it was a risk. In other words the IPCC was formed with express purpose to inform the world of the dangers of man-made global warming, that is their role.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In addition; all of the IPCC’s multi-national bureaucratic framework is tied into the United Nation, with all its multifaceted agendas and interests. With all of this techno-bureaucratic self-interested coagulation, nature did not have a chance. But nature does not exist or conform to the dictates of multinational organizations despite<a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/02/26/academics-prove-its-okay-to-lie-about-climate-change-n1800544" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> what lengths </a>they may go to<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> distort nature’s reality</a>.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Consider <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbia.edu%2F~jeh1%2Fmailings%2F2013%2F20130115_Temperature2012.pdf&ei=-gzuU-KfBtCUyATN-4CIDQ&usg=AFQjCNE1kM-VReoOPb2eYVGfZGRXM-3i3w&sig2=N5iDVDWOAhzBX0uCZOG9CQ&bvm=bv.73231344,d.aWw" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">this statement</a> from the “godfather” of global warming, James Hansen back in 2012</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
That “flat” rate of temperature increase has not changed and in fact most scientists agree that it has been going on much longer. Last year the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming admitted, well, the obvious.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Despite all the “explanations” for this, and there are many, the fact is that the global warming predicted by the climate change cult has not happened. Which leads to this very simple yet vitally important question; If temperatures have remained flat over the past fifteen years or more, what about all the stories over the past decade and a half about the negative effects of global warming on well….everything?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Today (8/15/2014) at least fifteen years after scientists admit temperatures stopped rising, I read at CNBC -<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/101920921#." style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">“Is climate change key to the spread of Ebola?”</a> Now common sense would answer obviously not since global warming stopped or to use the cult’s terminology “paused” when Bill Clinton was president but here we are told.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Some scientists believe global warming—and the subsequent increase in extreme weather—could be a factor behind in the virus’s ascendance.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Who are these scientists? Don’t they read the Economist?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
If there has been no global warming than all the dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications or the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider<a href="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> this </a>from the once prestigious National Geographic titled; “Effects of Global Warming <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Signs Are Everywhere</em>.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can’t you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures have been “flat” for over a decade.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-and-common-sense-alaska-is-melting/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Alaska has cooled</a> over the past 15 years. But you wouldn’t expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? Not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds? Thousands? You know all those increased diseases, those endangered species, those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly…. bogus.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As bogus as the theory itself.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Now you see the corner the narrative has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to “climate change” can not be true.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But unfortunately “climate change” has become the null hypothesis. In fact the very terms “climate change” or “global warming” have taken on new meanings. One automatically assumes that when these terms are used they mean man-made. The fact that there has been no global warming for seventeen years is irrelevant, climate change meaning man-made is the accepted reality. Society is living within a lie which everyone, even its benefactors, admits is a lie yet we go on as if it is the truth.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Josef Goebbels the NAZI propagandist nailed it when he observed</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It would seem that with repetition and psychological understanding, the climate cult has been able to manipulate society into believing cold is hot; where bitter winters are the result of global warming and all climatic conditions are the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels. Whatever the change, your modern lifestyle is responsible for it, feel guilt and follow us-sucker.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So ingrained into our educational and popular belief structure is the idea that we are endangering ourselves and the planet through the use of fossil fuels that the human race is willing to ignore reality to expunge ourselves from a false sense of guilt foisted on us by <a href="http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/climate-change-will-widen-social-and-health-gap/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">fools pretending to be wise.</a></div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Climate projections suggest that, thanks to human activity, we will likely see an increase in extreme weather events, disruptions to agriculture, loss of livelihoods and displacement of people.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Do you believe?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Ignore the pause join our cause!</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Read more at http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-null-hypothesis/#44B8RMyqOy5CaX6I.99</span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-69864248084958496602014-08-13T15:22:00.006-04:002014-08-13T15:22:52.921-04:00Climate Change and the great ‘known unknown’<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Despite declarations of certainty, the science of “climate change” is a great unknown.</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_76738" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/print-17a.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Storm Clouds|Photo Credit J.D.Brown" class="size-full wp-image-76738" height="482" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/print-17a.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Storm Clouds|Photo Credit J.D.Brown</div>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The last in a three-part series; read part<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> one</a> and <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-cults-outer-space-threat/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">two</a></em>.</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously coined the phrase “known unknowns.” He said:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Science pretty much operates in the “known unknown” realm. Occasionally but very rarely unknown unknowns reveal themselves out of the blue but for the most part science is an investigation of the known unknown of the physical universe. When it comes to climate science and the “theory” of man-made global warming, the largest known unknown of all is clouds and the part they play in the Earth’s climate, specifically the effect they have on this modern-day menagerie called climate change.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-cults-outer-space-threat/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> previous article</a> of this series we discussed the possibility of a new explanation for the “modern warming period” which suggests that more intense solar winds during periods of heightened solar activity block the natural and normal flow of cosmic rays bombarding the Earth’s atmosphere. It is proposed that these cosmic rays are responsible for the formation of or increased formation of clouds.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As <a href="http://www.dnva.no/c27368/artikkel/vis.html?tid=27375" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Eigil Friis-Christensen </a>has pointed out</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Is this important? According to the UN’s IPCC, the supposed scientific gold standard on all things having to do with man-made global warming, it is the most important known unknown of all. The IPCC admits that they do not have an understanding of clouds and more importantly, clouds are not being adequately modeled in their simulations – which are used<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> as the basis</em> for their alarmism.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
From the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (FAR).</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds</span> and their interactions with radiation.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Putting aside that “belief” is not proof, this “uncertainty” and “limited knowledge” of clouds is a very big deal. Putting aside the new research with <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-cults-outer-space-threat/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">cosmic rays</a>, that the climate cult does not actually understand a critical component of the theory which they claim is conclusive is nothing short of fraud. Because if they do not understand clouds then they cannot really forecast the climate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Dr. Roy Spencer <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%E2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">explains</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As with much of the climate change cult’s theory on global warming <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">the obvious must be ignored</a> in order that the elaborate house of cards of convoluted hypothesis and assumptions can be portrayed as being conclusive. But even the climate science community knows that they cannot ignore their own ignorance when it comes to clouds.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Again from the IPCC’s FAR <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-5-2.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">report</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">The modeling of cloud processes and feedbacks provides a striking example of the irregular pace of progress in climate science</span>. Representation of clouds may constitute the area in which <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">atmospheric models have been modified most continuously</span> to take into account increasingly complex physical processes. At the time of the TAR <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes as they still are at present.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As Klaus-Eckard Puls, Vice President of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), has <a href="http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">observed</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Only a few people in the climate discussion are aware that <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">CO2 is not the main driver</span>, and that most of the warming is assigned to the dubious amplification mechanism. CO2 by itself only has a warming potential of 1.1°C per atmospheric concentration doubling. It is only through the <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">theoretical assumption</span> of the up-to-now poorly understood amplification mechanism that the warming gets catapulted by the IPCC to 2.0-4.5°C per CO2 doubling, mainly through water vapour and clouds.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
All the studies that are conducted, the warnings given, the policies enacted the entire edifice of climate changeology from windmills to ethanol, from polar bears to melting glaciers are dependent on that foundation being true. If not then <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">everything</em> is built on sand. If the unproven “amplification” component of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory is not valid, everything that has happened as the result of the theory is based on false science as is being shown by the<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> 17 year pause in the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">projected</em> warming.</a>.....</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Read entire article at <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-great-known-unknown/#JHd8DdmxEDUuijpb.99">BBN</a></span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-72914530206107955452014-08-08T11:23:00.004-04:002014-08-08T11:23:54.324-04:00The climate change cult’s outer space threat<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<span style="font-size: 30px; line-height: 1.2;">Despite the claims of “consensus,” scientists the world over are studying an intriguing new theory on climate change:</span><span style="font-size: 30px; line-height: 1.2;"> </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 30px; line-height: 1.2;">read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">part one here</a></em></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_70453" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Crshower2_nasa.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="The cosmic ray climate change connection" class="size-full wp-image-70453" height="563" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Crshower2_nasa.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Cosmic Rays | Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In our <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">last article</a>, we noted that Sir William Herschel initially believed that more active solar activity in the form of sunspots would “weaken” the sun’s energy making the Earth’s weather less “mild.” As a result of this he believed that sunspots would hurt crop yield. However with investigation he found the exact opposite was true, the less active sun actually showed smaller crop yields while the more active sun showed greater crop yield. A similar thing happened to a future Nobel Laureate in physics, <a href="http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/public/hessbio.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Victor Hess.</a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Like the “obvious” conclusion that Herschel made about sunspots, the conventional wisdom up until the early twentieth century was that the closer you were to the Earth’s surface the higher the radiation levels would be. Since Earth was the source of radiation it was believed that as you moved away from the surface the radiation levels would begin to dissipate. Hess sought to prove or disprove this theory. He did this by ascending in a balloon on multiple occasions and taking measurement with an electrometer.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Surprisingly he found that rather than decreasing with increased elevation, radiation increased the higher into the atmosphere he ascended. Hess theorized that some sort of energized particles were entering the atmosphere from space, and he was right. In 1925 another scientist Robert Millikin confirmed Hess’s discovery and in 1936 Victor Hess and Carl David Anderson who discovered positron and the muon in the newly discovered “cosmic rays” were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Cosmic rays are really not rays at all but high energy particles whose sources of origin are varied but are suspected to be <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/high-energy-cosmic-rays/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> particles </a>formed as stars explode as supernovas. These particles are constantly bombarding the Earth from all directions. The Earth, indeed the solar system is moving within this ever flowing stream of highly charged particles that Hess discovered which we call cosmic rays.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One of the mysteries of Herschel’s connection between sunspots and wheat crops is how can sunspots have any bearing on Earth’s climate if the amount of energy reaching the Earth remains relatively constant? Over the years astronomers and scientists have <a href="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980506a.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">discovered</a> that one thing which <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">does</em> happen when the sun is more active and that is solar “winds” are stronger.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Increased sunspot activity frequently accompanies an increase in the outflow of matter from the Sun in the form of a “solar wind”. Charged particles in this wind can interact with atoms in the upper atmosphere and sometimes wreak havoc with our communications systems.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But its possible and a growing body of scientific evidence is mounting that there is a connection between sunspots and Earth’s climate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In 1991 before the global warming phenomena had totally corrupted the science community by turning everything it touches into a political contest, two Danish scientists Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published a paper. The paper was the product of years of research on the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. In a way it was a continuation of Herschel’s sunspot to price of wheat connection<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">.</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A few years later, another Danish scientist, physicist Henrik Svensmark who had investigated the possibility that cosmic rays could play a part in cloud formation teamed up with his fellow Danish scientists and an alternate theory on global warming was proposed. In the years since many scientists from around the world have joined the investigation into the connection between cosmic rays and Earth’s climate, which these Danish scientists initially proposed.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The basic theory is this:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The Earth is under constant bombardment by these cosmic rays; however the Sun’s magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from Earth. Therefore when the Sun is very active the increased solar winds deflect more of the cosmic rays away from the Earth, conversely when the Sun is “quiet” more of the cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere. In other words when the sun is active (sunspot activity) it protects the Earth from these cosmic rays. This part of the theory is not all that controversial.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The real question is whether cosmic rays are ionizing molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere attracting other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapor forms to create cloud droplets. Because as we shall explore in the final post of this series, clouds are extremely important and the great unknown in the climate change debate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Serious <a href="httphttp://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud://" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">research is</a>, finally, being done on this possibility that cosmic rays could help or even be responsible for cloud formation . If this connection is proven then the entire climate change narrative will virtually collapse.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But the link between sunspot activity and climate is, well shall we say interesting. In 2010 a Finnish research team did a <a href="http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">study</a> on long-term solar activity, long term meaning the last 12,000 years a very good <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">summary</a> of which you can find at the excellent Watts Up With site. Among the more interesting conclusions the scientist come to in their study is this:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The sun spends about 70% of its time at moderate magnetic activity levels, about 15 – 20% of its time in a grand minimum and about 10 – 15% in a grand maximum. <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Modern solar activity corresponds to a grand maximum</span>.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The graph from their research recreating solar activity over the past 12,000 years bears this out.</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Read more at <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-cults-outer-space-threat/#pRo3qTVlK37vtlqX.99">BBN</a></span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-20023748693946374262014-08-07T08:18:00.004-04:002014-08-07T08:18:52.750-04:00Climate change: The First Denier<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_66043" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/William_Herschel01.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons" class="size-full wp-image-66043" height="545" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/William_Herschel01.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons</div>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The first in a three-part series on an alternative explanation for “climate change”</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One common sense fact in the global warming debate has to do with the unyielding and undeniable timeline of history. On that timeline there is a rather definite beginning and progression of what is known as the Industrial Revolution and the beginning and increase of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In fact the entire foundation of the global warming theory depends on this beginning of man’s emissions of CO2. But this historical fact works both ways because if you argue that mankind’s emissions are the primary driver of the warming world then you also are admitting that any climate changes prior to those increased emissions cannot be the result of man’s influence.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
For years the climate cult has attempted to portray the Earth’s climate as being rather benign until mankind’s influence destroyed the tranquility. This narrative flies in the face and denies the<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> historical record</a> and even <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/undefinable-science-global-warming-unprecedented/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">their own research</a>.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There is a very simple reason why it is necessary for the cult to reinforce this narrative because to admit that climate changed prior to man’s emissions is to bring another “actor” into the global warming debate thus depriving CO2 and humanity sole responsibility for the “emergency.” If you are blaming man-made greenhouse gasses for the “crisis,” it does not serve your purposes to point out that there have always been periods of changing temperatures on Earth. After all who is to say that what caused previous changes is not occurring now?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Sherlock Holmes famous advice that “..when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,” only works if you first eliminate the impossible. The climate science community not only did not eliminate the impossible they reached a conclusion by ruling out the obvious.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One of history’s greatest if lesser known scientists was the German/ English astronomer Sir William Herschel, Sir William among many great scientific achievements in a very long and distinguished life discovered the first planet not known to ancient man, Uranus. He also determined that the sun emitted light from beyond the visible spectrum and discovered that coral were animals and not plants. However, what he first noticed in 1801 is what sets the cult’s teeth on edge. He <a href="http://thesciencebookstore.com/2012/02/william-herschel-adam-smith-sunspots-and-wheat/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">wrote</a>,</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has taken place, when the sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be the symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat…</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
He was speaking of sunspots and he was the first to<a href="http://simostronomy.blogspot.com/2013/01/sir-william-herschel-variable-stars.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> observe </a>that for some reason sunspots affected crop yield. Herschel initially thought sunspots deprived the sun of energy and heat and thus would cool the Earth causing lower crop yield.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The Nature of the Sun, I am now much inclined to believe that openings [sunspots] …. may lead us to expect a copious emission of heat, and therefore mild seasons . . . A constant observation of the sun with this view, and a proper information respecting the general mildness or severity of the seasons, in all parts of the world, may bring this theory to perfection or refute it if it be not well founded.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Interesting isn’t it that until the global warming scare, humanity has always equated warmer weather as being good and colder weather as being bad.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Intrigued by the possibility of a way to predict weather or even crop yields, Herschel continued his investigation by studying Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” which included a section on yearly wheat prices.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
From his investigation he deduced that in periods when prices were high it was because the crops yields were low due to poor growing seasons, i.e., bad weather. Herschel then compared these findings to the record of sunspots during the corresponding time periods. To his surprise he found that low sunspot activity yielded low crop yield, which was the exact opposite from what he had expected. But William Herschel had made a direct if not yet understood link between the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s climate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Now common sense, not to mention volumes of historical records, testify to the fact that prior to the Industrial Revolution there were periods of abundance and periods of scarcity brought on by changing climate. Even well into the Industrial Revolution, before anyone claims that man had influenced the climate through greenhouse gas emissions, there was America’s great Dust Bowl era of the<a href="http://drought.unl.edu/DroughtBasics/DustBowl/DroughtintheDustBowlYears.aspx" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> thirties</a>.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #424242;">Although the 1930s drought is often referred to as if it were one episode, there were at least 4 distinct drought events: 1930–31, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40 (Riebsame et al., 1991). These events occurred in such rapid succession that affected regions were not able to recover adequately before another drought began.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
No one that I am aware of is claiming that the droughts of the 1930′s had anything to do with the Model T. History is filled with examples of changing climate patterns all over the globe which obviously could not in any way be connected to man-made emissions.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
To put it plainly, something caused the climate to change before we started driving cars now didn’t it?....</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Read my entire <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climate-change-first-denier">article at BBN</a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
After Herschel’s discovery and actually going back to the dawn of the human race, man has had a pretty good idea what causes climate to change and it has little to do with carbon dioxide. The problem is that in spite of the fact that everyone realizes that the sun is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate, nobody had been able to explain how it could control global temperatures.</div>
</div>
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Read more at http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-first-denier/#pl2gPp8FQdcsdxpT.99</span>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-13657959436026281022014-07-31T07:15:00.002-04:002014-07-31T07:15:43.208-04:00Global warming’s casualty: “They burn food don’t they?”<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 24px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The climate cult owns the fact that billions of tons of food have been wasted in a Quixotic quest to save the world from non-existent global warming threat</h3>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_57383" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Corn_stalks_at_sunset.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Photo Credit| Wikimedia Commons" class="size-full wp-image-57383" height="502" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Corn_stalks_at_sunset.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Photo Credit| Wikimedia Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Back in the late sixties there was one of those dark artistic “deep” meaning movies which were so popular at the time with the somewhat ominous tile, “They shoot horses don’t they?” The plot is somewhat long, involved and depressing but the reason for the title becomes clear at the very end of the movie when one of the main characters is asked why he assisted in the suicide of his marathon dance partner. His answer is the title of the film. He meant of course that when a horse is suffering it is shot to put it out of its misery.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This is how I think of the ethanol connection to global warming. Believing that the planet Earth, Gaia for the more artistic minded, is in misery due to global warming, the well-meaning stars of our drama choose to put it out of its misery by burning the world’s food supply. This for all practical purposes is assisted suicide. “They burn food don’t they?”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But it is worse than that, it always is.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Perhaps the only thing stupider than paying farmers not to grow crops is paying farmers to grow food crops to burn as fuel. Not that you can really blame farmers for lobbying to keep ethanol mandates in place, it certainly helps keep farms profitable. But if your goal is to “help” mankind which would be a better strategy, continue to force refiners to blend food crops in their fuel mixes, or purchase the crops and send them to the impoverished people of the world?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The political left is always railing against spending money for defense or wars. Remember the often repeated anti-war theme during the second Iraq war, “No blood for oil?” As it turned out the United States never did get any of that oil that everyone was so concerned about. Where is the concern about the direct waste in burning food for fuel, how about a new chant “No food for fuel!”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Actually many environmentalist have come to the realization that ethanol along with many other bio-fuels are not the panacea they at one time believed it would be. It is an active debate whether ethanol is a net positive or net negative for the environment but what is not a close call however is the fact that worldwide large areas of land which could be growing food crops instead are being used to grow crops to be burnt as fuel.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Worse yet, this fuel additive is more expensive than the gasoline it replaces. In the United States alone <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">forty percent of all corn grown </a>is now used for ethanol production. An ideology which is constantly making the claim that the poor will be most affected by climate change and uses this as a means to foster guilt on society, is itself responsible for policies that severely punish the poor.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is easy now to claim that “special interest” and “Big Agriculture” are responsible for maintaining this irrational misuse of resources but this like so many other wasteful and illogical issues that society faces today are the direct result of the global warming scam</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warmings-casualty-burn-food-dont/">entire article at BBN</a></i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-53295428694550330612014-07-23T20:23:00.000-04:002014-07-23T20:23:20.869-04:00“Winter is coming”: The real danger of global warming<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_46638" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 698px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/winter-coming-real-danger-global-warming/1389213612-ax005_14ad_9/" rel="attachment wp-att-46638" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Chicago- Winter 2014|Photo Credit Wiki Commons" class="size-medium wp-image-46638" height="459" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1389213612-ax005_14ad_9-688x459.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="688" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Chicago- Winter 2014|Photo Credit Wiki Commons</div>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The global warming cult drives policies which lead the world in the wrong direction</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Some of the more severely insane policies that have been forced on society by the climate cult will take a generation or more to undo. But perhaps the greater harm is that we may not only be adopting wasteful policies to fight a non existent threat; we may be adopting policies which will result in harming the planet.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Before the onset of the carbon dioxide panic, governments and citizens pretty much took climate, like weather, as it came. We were, in a very real sense, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">always</em> prepared because the only thing you could prepare for was the unexpected. Nobody claimed to know what the weather was going to be next month, let alone decades into the future.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Even today, nobody would cancel a June Caribbean cruise in December, for example, because someone predicted there would be a hurricane along the ship’s route; nobody would postpone an outdoor wedding because of projected rain three months in advance. We know that such predictions are not possible, yet the climate cult has convinced policy makers to formulate long term policies based on their theory and model projections of a future climate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The widespread acceptance of the global warming “theory” by governments and policy makers in many institutions has had a profound effect on society. This will become even more pronounced if the direction we are currently heading is the opposite of what the future actually brings. There already have been examples of this disconnect between theory and reality, some small, some large, which are affecting people in very real ways whether they recognize it or not.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This past winter, the United States experienced one of the coldest winters in forty years. This had a drastic effect on the Southeastern United States where cold and snow events unlike any endured in a generation left citizens unprepared. From New Orleans to Atlanta, traffic was crippled and life came to a standstill. It is easy to blame current government officials for not being prepared. But on the other hand, for decades governments have been more likely to produce studies on how to prepare for sea level rise or on how to protect the loblolly pine from devastating global warming than actually prepare for the occasional rare snow storm. Snow storms, which they have been assured, will soon be a thing of the past in their neck of the woods.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This is an example of an easy problem to solve. If governments use common sense to prepare for climate and weather events rather than rely on theoretical projections of future climate, or if they just admit they do not know what future weather will be, they would be better served than preparing in the wrong direction. But as long as the climate cult sets the agenda for government priorities, the problems will multiply and compound themselves.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A half a decade ago when few would even consider anything but a warming world, Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it <a href="http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing-the-hype/target=_blank/In%20homage%20to%20a/target=_blank/P784/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">this way</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
We could be in for a surprise it’s possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There is much evidence that the sun’s high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun’s activity is of great significance in determining the earth’s climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Not only has Dr. Brekke’s warnings of a “quiet” sun <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-the-sun-goes-eerily-quiet-20140718-story.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">come true</a>, evidence is mounting that we may be at the beginning of a global cooling pattern. ...</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read entire <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/winter-coming-real-danger-global-warming/">article at BBN</a></i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-60807627925494038722014-06-19T07:48:00.002-04:002014-06-19T07:48:54.164-04:00The white man brought climate change to the New World<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Melting glaciers in Glacier National Park as a poster child for the claim “white man brought climate change”. But just how old are those glaciers?</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_31228" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Glacier_National_Park_sunset.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Glacier National Park|Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons" class="wp-image-31228 size-full" height="444" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Glacier_National_Park_sunset.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Glacier National Park | Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Melting glaciers ranks near the top with the polar bears as a symbol used by the climate cult to “prove” global warming, man-made of course. The hyperbole over melting glaciers has gotten the cult in trouble on more than one occasion.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There was Al Gore’s famous assertion in An Inconvenient Truth that the snows of Mt Kilimanjaro were melting which turned out not to be caused by carbon dioxide induced warming but rather a real environmental problem<a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">deforestation around the mountain</a>. Then there was the IPCC claiming in their “authoritative” fourth assessment report (FAR) that the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035. A claim that was not only <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">false</a> but showed just how shoddy and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">unscientific </a>the IPCC and their fellow cult members truly are.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
When it comes to the United States and glaciers, there is nothing more iconic than Glacier National Park, so of course the cult and all its minions latch onto the receding glaciers in GNP as “proof” of man-made global warming.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
For example a recent USGS “<a href="http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">report</a>” on glaciers in Glacier National Park is little more than a propaganda sheet on “global climate change.” However they do make this rather cryptic and unsubstantiated claim:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were <a href="http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_glaciers.htm" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago</a>, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Perhaps the most important item of note from the above statement is that there are no citations as to the studies which back up the age of the current glaciers. In the rest of the report there are citations to recent studies which predict the continuing demise of the glaciers, but when it comes to scientific studies about the age of the glaciers, there is nothing. That is alright I have some.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But before we get to that let’s take a second to dissect the above paragraph. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago yet according to this USGS report the glaciers in Glacier National Park are not from that period, they are, they claim, 7,000 years old. Even if this statement is true there is a serious gap of time there.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Left unstated but obvious, is that for five thousand years, from 10,000 BC until 5,000 B.C. there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park. This is no small matter, although 5000 B.C. is ancient history it is not before humankind. In 5,000 B.C. the Mesopotamians were beginning to actually record history and on a more local note the so-called “native” Americans had migrated over the land bridge from Asia to North America at least 10,000 years before and recent studies show that they may have come some <a href="http://ows.edb.utexas.edu/site/hight-kreitman/land-bridge-theory" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">25,000 years ago</a>.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So our Native American ancestors who populated the region around Glacier National Park must have lived in a climate similar to the one we are warned of in our future. They lived in a time when there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park. That of course is if the glaciers in Glacier National Park are really 7,000 years old, but are they?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Well perhaps some very tiny bit of the glaciers formed that long ago, even the most recent USGS report notes that “These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D…” but the USGS is being modest. You see the USGS study on the Glaciers in Glacier National Park is quite extensive,</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Let me give you a few excerpts from this study that speaks to the age of the glaciers in Glacier National Park.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/white-man-brought-climate-change-new-world/"> entire article</a> at Brenner Brief</i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-64575454239483398812014-06-04T19:33:00.000-04:002014-06-04T19:33:16.614-04:00Obama uses children to promote EPA agenda<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
<i>From my <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/obama-uses-children-promote-epa-agenda/">Brenner Brief column</a></i></header><header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br /></header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Obama uses non-existent health threats to push for Environmental Protection Agency regulations at National Children’s Hospital</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_26717" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 654px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Cigarettes-2.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Obama|Photo Credit Wiki Media" class="size-large wp-image-26717" height="600" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Cigarettes-2-644x600.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="644" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Obama|Photo Credit Wiki Media</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This past Friday President Obama visited the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington D.C. and met with children who suffered from asthma. The event was planned to promote Monday’s release of new EPA regulations on carbon emissions. At the children’s hospital Obama <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/obama-previews-new-epa-rules-grids-for-climate-fight/#disqus_thread" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">made the following comment</a>,</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing. Right now, there are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. None.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The problem with the comment is that so-called carbon pollution is literally air we breathe. Every living being exhales the carbon (dioxide) that Obama and his administration is wanting more control over. In addition asthma has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide, the children who have it, bless their hearts, are not affected one bit by increased CO2 from power plants.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
We have<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> noted before </a>that labeling carbon dioxide a pollutant is obscene:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
…CO2 is not toxic, not pollution and not even that “<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="503107ab-b30a-44e2-8c73-fb5a7a9e8297" style="box-sizing: border-box;">smokey</span>” substance coming out of smoke stacks or car exhausts you see every time a news agency does a report on “climate change.” Carbon dioxide is a harmless invisible trace gas that is vital for all life on planet Earth. Does the term <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/11/11/shine-on-you-crazy-diamond-why-humans-are-carbon-based-lifeforms/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">“carbon based life”</a> ring a bell?</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements – all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="14f20f3c-942f-4e21-9deb-f0e375386eec" style="box-sizing: border-box;">elements it </span>seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon. It would be impossible for life on earth to exist without carbon. Carbon is the main component of sugars, proteins, fats, DNA, muscle tissue, pretty much everything in your body…</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Carbon dioxide, the element that gives the climate cult so much distress is life itself, yet Obama, the EPA and like minded members of the climate cult have convinced themselves and the naive that follow them that it is pollution. But it is worse than that, when it comes to climate “science” it always is.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It seems that Obama has taken a leap off the reality cliff. It is one thing to say that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which heats the atmosphere, it does, it is quite another thing to say that it is a pollutant that will directly affect people’s health.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Going to the hospital in a blatant attempt to link carbon dioxide to children’s health is like blaming water for drowning fish. No more can a child be harmed by breathing carbon dioxide than a fish can be harmed from “breathing” water. A reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have absolutely no direct effect on these children’s asthma or any other human health issue, yet here is the President of the United States claiming that it will, how can he possibly make such an absurd connection?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Although this is an obvious attempt to make people think that carbon dioxide poses a health threat to humans which it does not, Obama is just using the same old climate cult playbook to deceive the public. Think Progress the progressive media outlet explains half the deception when they admit that<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/02/3443697/climate-rule-reactions/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> CO2 is not really a direct health threat.</a></div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">However, the direct health effects of greenhouse gases were never the problem. The problem is the </span><a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/comments/volume5.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">indirect effects</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;"> — they’re the primary driver of climate change, which leads to hotter, longer heat waves, threatening the health of the sick, poor and elderly. Greenhouse gas emissions also lead to increases in ground-level ozone pollution, which is linked to asthma and other illnesses.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the last sentence Think Progress is attempting to link all greenhouse gasses to ground-level ozone which is a separate gas (O3) which is not carbon “pollution” at all. Ground level ozone like all real air pollutants has decreased in the United States over the past few decades and is <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">now at or below the EPA’s own national standards</a>. What Think Progress, Obama and the EPA are actually saying is that the threat of carbon “pollution” to public health is the indirect “harm” caused by global warming.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Putting aside the economic implications of the EPA regulations <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscience.house.gov%2Fpress-release%2Fsmith-new-epa-power-plant-regs-all-pain-no-gain&ei=RGKOU7iGN8KIqgbU9oD4Ag&usg=AFQjCNEIXshy8977GQdMFRIqxBCa6i-06w&sig2=J6TvnNhwX-j3peAZk3iNyQ&bvm=bv.68235269,d.b2k" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">which are immense</a> and of questionable constitutionality, there is no science to back up the policy,<a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/the-epas-science-problem/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> literally</a>.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">In a stunning admission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy </span><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/epa-concedes-we-can-t-produce-all-data-justifying-clean-air-rules" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: maroon; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">revealed</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;"> to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the agency neither possesses, nor can produce, all of the scientific data used to justify the </span><a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: maroon; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">rules and regulations</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;"> they have imposed on Americans via the Clean Air Act. In short, science has been trumped by the radical environmentalist agenda. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the case of carbon dioxide and the global warming connection, the “science” that is depended upon is not based on any actual evidence but on the <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/the-global-warming-self-perpetuating-money-machine/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">hypothetical model projections </a>of future warming, warming that exists solely in agenda driven climate scientists computers.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
…if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Not only does the use of climate model “projections” of the future have the advantage of being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Future warming in climate models is also a gold mine for politicians who can use an unverifiable threat to enact policies and promote their agendas. When you can use sick little children as a backdrop to that agenda it is an unscrupulous politician’s dream come true.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-69015734469993105352014-06-01T14:09:00.001-04:002014-06-01T14:09:21.273-04:00Conflict of interest, the economy versus global warming agendaFrom my Brenner Brief <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/conflict-of-interest-the-economy-versus-global-warming-agenda/">column</a><br />
<br />
<div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The Obama administration blames U.S. economic downturn on severe winter while pushing global warming agenda</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_25832" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/White-House.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Global Warming engulfs The White House|Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons" class="size-full wp-image-25832" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/White-House.jpg" height="500" scale="0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Global Warming engulfs The White House|Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is natural that this should happen since liberalism as practiced by the modern Democratic Party has become a never-ending balancing act of trying to enact leftist agenda driven policies to solve imaginary problems. So it is not surprising that the imagined world of the left to the real world awaits only a peek behind the curtain to be exposed. That being the case there still has seldom been such an obvious conflict in liberal orthodoxy as that which is taking place in the upper levels of the U.S. Government.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In order to deflect attention away from the Obama Administrations many failure and scandals while simultaneously ginning up support from an influential and powerful segment of the Democratic base, environmentalists, the administration has made a big push on climate change policy, aka global warming.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Starting with the release of the <a href="http://www.globalchange.gov/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">National Climate Assessment</a>, Obama and his administration have begun a new push to warn Americans of the terrible threat facing us due to global warming. In <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">speeches,</a> in <a href="http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05/the-epas-new-carbon-regulations-could-cut-coal-plant-emissions-by-20-percent/371799/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">regulation proposals</a>, and in <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/06/podesta-says-zero-chance-congress-can-stop-obama-climate-plan/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">threatened “executive actions</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: underline;">“</span> the administration has hyped the global warming agenda.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Meanwhile, it was announced on Thursday that the nation’s first quarter gross domestic product (GDP) had been revised down into negative territory, -1%. The reason given for this<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/29/6441467/gdp-revised-down-to-negative-territory.html#storylink=cpy" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> bad news</a>?</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">“Overall the first quarter was subject to a number of notable influences, including historically severe </span><a class=" lingo_link" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/winter+weather/" rel="nofollow" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #024a82; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">winter weather,</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;"> which temporarily lowered growth,” said Jason Furman, head of the </span><a class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/Council+of+Economic+Advisers/" rel="nofollow" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">Council of Economic Advisers.</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;"> “</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
This of course is in direct contradiction to the theory of global warming which predicts that winters are going to be warmer. In fact the second paragraph of the Overview of that much touted National Climate Assessment states</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #32373b;">Winters are generally shorter and warmer. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
Well, except when they are not in which case harsh winters are a good cover for a shrinking economy brought on by Democratic policies. Which “coincidentally”in the same time frame saw the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) not to mention the threats of and recently implemented environmental policies that will needlessly hurt businesses,</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
While the administration is out pushing a “climate” report that claims that the winter of 2012 was one of the warmest ever, they fail to note that the winter that had just ended was <a href="http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">one of the coldest on record.</a> In fact the previous year (2013) was <a href="http://www.weather.com/news/ncdc-state-climate-report-annual-2013-20140115" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">cooler than normal</a> for the United States.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
Much of the U.S. saw cooler-than-average and wetter-than-average conditions in 2013, according to the government’s official annual climate report released Wednesday.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
It is undeniable that the severe winter of 2014 hurt the U.S. economy, colder weather always hurts the economy, which makes a thinking person wonder why the purveyors of doom and gloom attack warmer weather. What is not being mentioned however is that we have had many cold and severe winters in our history but it is only when you are hovering near zero economic growth will colder weather throw the economy into the below zero range as has happened in the first quarter of 2014.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black;">
But the real charade is the Obama administration blaming a severe winter for a shrinking economy while simultaneously warning that global warming is having and will have a severe impact on the US economy now and into the future. Irony is just so ironic.</div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-66333495941553233142014-05-28T07:44:00.004-04:002014-05-28T07:44:53.469-04:00Extreme global warming, or cooling, is the norm on Earth<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Extreme global warming and temperature extremes are not only nothing new, they are our experience</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_23717" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Miami.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="extreme global warming" class="wp-image-23717 size-full" height="594" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Miami.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Miami|Photo Credit J.D. Brown</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Al Gore, the world’s number one purveyor of doom and gloom <a href="http://blog.algore.com/2007/07/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">once wrote</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This really is the argument isn’t it? That the temperature increase that the climate cult led by their high priests such as Al Gore are prophesying is caused by mankind and their <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">nasty CO2</a> which will destroy conditions for humans and other life forms on Earth. Because of this Gore says that we are jeopardizing some idyllic climate condition :</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
…while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So enamoured was Gore of this “pleasant” temperature he considers so important to the human race that shortly after writing this he went out and<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">bought a $9 million mansion </a>in Southern California where the average temperature is very close to his “pleasant 59.” As Noel Sheperd observed at the time, “Certainly not bad for a guy who supposedly was worth between one and two million dollars in 2000.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Most of the rest of the world’s inhabitants are not able to live in such “pleasant” temperatures simply because the Earth is really not a “pleasant 59 degrees.” The global temperature is as diverse as the people who live on it.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Toronto Canada is the 52nd largest metropolitan area in the world with a population of over six million people in other words by Gore’s standards we would consider it “habitable”. About 1500 miles to the south of Canada’s largest city is Miami an American city of comparable size, Miami is the 58th largest metropolitan area in the world. Like all of the world’s large cities these two cities have many similarities but one thing they do not have in common is their climate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Toronto has an <a href="http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=42617&cityname=Toronto-Ontario-Canada" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">average temperature of </a>45.9 degrees while Miami’s<a href="http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=20227&cityname=Miami-Florida-United-States-of-America" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> average temperature</a> is a balmy 77.2 degrees a difference of 41.3 degrees. This is their average temperatures when you look at the extremes the differences are even more noticeable. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Toronto is -31.4 degrees while the warmest temperature ever recorded in Miami is 98 degrees an amazing difference of 129.4 degrees. These extreme conditions exist in cities where people are obviously able to live and function normally.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Consider that the <a href="http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=47920&cityname=Helsinki-Finland" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">average annual temperature</a> in Helsinki, Finland of 41 degrees is eleven degrees colder than the <a href="http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=55484&cityname=Bangkok-Thailand" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">coldest temperature ever recorded in Bangkok</a>, Thailand. Residents of Helsinki live in an environment where the average temperature is 41 degrees while in Bangkok the resident’s live in an average temperature of 84 degrees neither of which is anywhere near Gore’s “pleasant 59.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But you do not have to travel “around the world” to find extreme differences in temperatures, my experience proves this. Years ago I lived in the “great plains” of northeast Montana. One January an Arctic blast came sweeping down from Alberta and for several days we experienced temperatures well below 0. In fact for three days in a row the air temperature reached a low of -31 degrees and with the wind chill it was close to -50. But remarkably, but actually not, just six months later in July of the same year the temperature reached a 103 degrees. That is a 134 degree difference in temperature, not in different global “climate zones” but in the same location and in the same year. Now that is climate change!</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The climate alarmist have conditioned us to look at minor changes in temperatures with foreboding. A half of degree celsius temperature increase over the course of more than a century is represented as some sort of harbinger of a coming global apocalypse. The fact that humans have survived even thrived in divergent climates so far removed from the temperatures they warn us of is laughable.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/extreme-global-warming-or-cooling-is-the-norm-on-earth/">rest of article</a> at Brenner Brief</i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-10734240719236502182014-05-21T23:24:00.000-04:002014-05-21T23:24:23.681-04:00Climate change report hurts national security<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 24px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
A group of retired generals have released a climate change report that claims that weather is a threat to national security. What climate change is that exactly?</h3>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_21835" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 489px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/720px-General_Donald_J_Hoffman.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="General Donald J Hoffman I Photo Credit Wiki media Commons" class="size-large wp-image-21835" height="600" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/720px-General_Donald_J_Hoffman-479x600.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="479" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
General Donald J Hoffman | Photo Credit Wiki media Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Perhaps you may recall when former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen testified before congress and claimed that America’s<a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65432" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> greatest national security threat was our national debt.</a> Such sentiments, however true, are no longer in line with a liberal administration whose answer to every problem begins and ends with government spending.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A new threat is needed so a group of ex-military officers<a href="http://time.com/98798/climate-change-security-threat-us/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> have stepped forward </a>if to not exactly to serve their nation then at least to serve the current Commander and Chief’s political talking points. Forget the debt, forget the Iranian mullahs, the former KGB colonel with a Napoleon complex, or even suicidal maniacs that consider the United states “The Great Satan,” the growing threat to American national security is climate change.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One irony in the <a href="http://www.cna.org/reports/accelerating-risks" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">report </a>put out by a group calling itself the <a href="http://www.cna.org/centers/military-board" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Center for Naval Analysis’ Military Advisory Board</a> is that while the left for years has vociferously objected to using our military for “nation building” they have absolutely no problem in utilizing that same military for, well, nation building.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #282828;">The U.S. military should plan to help manage catastrophes and conflicts both domestically and internationally….</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
That US military managing catastrophes and conflict “domestically” is a bit disconcerting as well.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One of these retired military officers who is out campaigning for the Obama agenda is retired Air Force General Don Hoffman who is currently on a speaking tour warning of the threat posed by climate change to our national security. In <a href="http://m.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2014/05/14/retired-u-s-air-force-general-in-columbus-to.html?ana=e_colum_nrg&u=wi+E0MuMZYrMpvwpWa1y6JdHkvc&t=1400519736&r=full" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">a recent interview</a> he made an observation which caught my attention.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“We find ourselves increasingly responding to natural disasters,” said Hoffman, who retired in 2012 as commander of Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. “The military is there and was in the past. The intensity and frequency has gone up. What used to be a 100-year event is now a decade event. It’s going to take more and more time and consumption and ability for the military to respond to that. I think we will but that’s less training for our day job, which is national defense.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The first point that must be noted is that the use of our military in dealing with “natural disasters” is purely a policy and priority choice. The general makes this point himself when he points out that in dealing with these disasters the military is short changing their actual purpose, national defense. If an administration chooses to use our military to help with “natural disasters” rather than train for their “day job” that choice itself is the threat to national security not the disaster. There are plenty of federal and state agencies that are and can be tasked with dealing with natural disasters without using the military. In fact it is the traditional role of a state’s National Guard to deal with natural disasters without the need to call in the 101st Airborne.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But the more important question that needs to be answered is what exactly are the increased “natural disasters” that the military is being called upon to deal with? Which disaster’s “intensity and frequency has gone up?” Let’s look at some actual facts.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
When discussing the alleged increase in natural disasters, it is very important to remember that even if you” believe” in the climate change meme, many natural disasters can not be attributed to climate change. Only the unhinged fringe of the climate cult would blame tsunamis, earthquakes or volcanoes on climate change and these three disasters are among the largest challenges faced by humans when dealing with natural disasters.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
One natural disaster that requires a great deal of manpower and logistical expertise to deal with and where the military might be a benefit, though state National Guards have done a wonderful job over the years, is hurricanes. Are hurricanes increasing in “intensity and frequency”?Despite the cover of Al Gore’s book and the posters for his docudrama, hurricanes in the last decade are actually less frequent and particularly where the United States is concerned, less intense.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Not only is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) a metric that measures both the intensity and duration of cyclone activity <a href="http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">at historic lows</a></div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
But as regards to the United States, the last major hurricane (category 3,4,5) to strike the United States was Wilma in 2005. This drought of major hurricane strikes on the United States is the longest period since the Civil War. So much for the military having to deal with increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
What about tornadoes? When discussing weather events and the “records” surrounding them it is important to realize that the historical record is often quite short and where they may be longer they are obviously less accurate the further back in time you go. The official record on tornadoes as an example only goes back to 1950, not exactly enough time to determine whether or not a season is “historic.” So we will just let a real climate scientist who is an expert on tornadoes answer the frequency intensity question. What <a href="http://www.livescience.com/34488-tornado-unknowns.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">say you</a> Harold Brooks, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory?</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
No one knows whether tornadoes have increased in number or intensity, since the aforementioned changes in reporting practices “make the intensity question harder to answer,” Brooks said, adding, “If you take the dataset of reports at face value, it appears intensity has decreased over the years, but there are a number of things that have led to lower ratings for the strongest tornadoes.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So our military has not been needed for more frequent or intense tornadoes, at least as far as the scientists can determine. So that leaves what? Floods and droughts? I really don’t know what the military could do about droughts, haul water? But let’s get it out of the way. Here is the official drought record for the United States from NOAA. Please note that the “dry” condition is below the dotted line.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-report-hurts-national-security/">entire article</a> at Brenner Brief</div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-27889683749141313742014-05-21T08:01:00.003-04:002014-05-21T08:01:53.115-04:00Global warming’s ice cube fantasy<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
<div>
<i>My newest<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warmings-ice-cube-fantasy/"> article at Brenner Brief </a></i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Are Scientists who do not use scientific principles to reach conclusions really scientists?</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_21420" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 621px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Natural_ice_cube.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="global warming" class="wp-image-21420 size-medium" height="459" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Natural_ice_cube-611x459.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="611" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Natural ice cube l Photo Credit Wiki Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Let me propose a science experiment, don’t worry you don’t actually have to perform the experiment, this is the best kind of science, you can do it in your mind using only good old common sense. First take two identical ice cubes outside and place one in the sun and one in the shade, which will melt faster? Technically they are both in the same air temperature the sunshine hitting the surface of the ice is not air temperature.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Everyone knows that the ice-cube in the sun is going to melt much faster than the one in the shade. Just for kicks and giggles I actually performed this experiment. At the time that I sacrificed my two ice cubes to science it was a clear sunny day and my digital thermostat said it was 86 degrees Fahrenheit outside. Both cubes were placed on the same surface, grass. The cube in the sun melted, in just over 21 minutes. The cube in the shade however held on for 37 minutes. Of course you knew this would be the case because you have common sense.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Let’s take our common sense experiment a little further. Let’s take two more imaginary ice cubes and place one in a refrigerator where the temperature is probably around 36 degrees. How long would it take that ice-cube to melt? Well my test cube is still in my fridge after 48 hours and looks like it will be there for longer than I care to wait to write this article. Do I even need to mention what happens to an ice-cube in a freezer or will we all just stipulate that without the sun beating down on it that ice kept below freezing will not melt.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So let’s review, ice above freezing temperatures melts faster in the sun than ice melts in the same temperature without sun. Ice near freezing temperature without sun melts very slowly but with sun will melt faster. Ice below freezing will not melt without the sun, period. Childish review of the known properties of ice but I think necessary when reviewing modern climate cult narratives.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Now check out the graph below which I will explain in more detail after you have looked at it for a minute, or skipped it and gone to the text below. Unlike the NSA I have no way of monitoring your compliance.</div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_21028" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 610px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/arctic-temperatures-2014.png" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Arctic Temperatures Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degree North (2013). from DMI Center for Ocean and Ice" class="size-full wp-image-21028" height="400" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/arctic-temperatures-2014.png" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="600" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Arctic Temperatures<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degree North (2013). from DMI Center for Ocean and Ice</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This is a graph from the Danish Meteorological Institute of last years temperatures above 80 degrees North latitude which is considered the high Arctic. Being a scientific institution and all the DMI measures temperatures in Kelvin (K) but to make it simple for us lay people they put a blue line at 273.5 K which is the freezing mark (32 degF). To further identify what we are talking about, 235 degrees Kelvin is the same as -36.67 degrees fahrenheit, or very, very cold.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The green line is the average temperature for this region between the years 1958-2002. Before I get into deeper “scientific” analysis I would have you note that in 2013 the summer months in this northern most Arctic region were<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> much colder than “normal.”</a> If you look at the <a href="http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">charts going back to the beginning of the series</a> in 1958 few years were as cold as it was this past summer in the “Polar Circle.” Perhaps this is why the “polar vortex” which attacked the United States this winter was so cold? What you will also note is that there are actually very few days where the temperature, even in a normal year, reach above freezing. In an average year about 90 days are above freezing and despite global warming in 2014 there were less than half that number! This all means that, on average, for 270 days a year this region is below freezing where ice will not melt unless exposed to the sun. Remember though the Sun is not directly causing global warming “man-made” CO2 is, or so the story goes.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
There is a very simple reason why this region is so cold, from late September to late March there is no direct sunlight, it is in either complete darkness or<a href="http://www.livescience.com/32814-arctic-daylight-darkness-myth-equinox.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">varying stages of twilight</a>. Of course the opposite is also true, this is after all the “land of the midnight sun” there is a period during the summer months where just like the old British Empire “the Sun never sets.” This period of nearly continuous sunlight, if not cloudy, accounts for the period in the graph above where temperatures hover around freezing.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the graph above 275 degrees Kelvin is your refrigerator, 35.33 degF and we know how long it takes to melt an ice-cube in your refrigerator. The warmest temperature ever recorded at the North Pole was a balmy 41 degF. To understand how truly cold the Arctic region is<a href="http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=110340&regionname=North-Pole" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> the closest fixed weather station to the North Pole</a> is in Greenland 440 miles south of the Pole. The average July temperature, the hottest month, at this station is 35 degrees and this is 440 miles south of the North Pole!</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Why is all of this important? Well let’s just consider everything below that blue line as your freezer and everything above that blue line your refrigerator. A concept that is just too simple for modern climate scientists with there play station computer models to grasp.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
From <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">National Geographic Magazine</a>, December 12, 2007:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Forget for a moment, if you can, the inaccuracy of the prediction, just consider the lack of basic science behind the prediction. There are reasons that the Arctic Ocean which includes nearly all the area represented in the above graph could conceivably become ice-free but global warming even under the most dire of predictions is not one of them. Unfavorable winds and currents along with a particularly clear skied summer season might conspire to completely break up the ice pack, though there is no record of this ever occurring, but that is not what the “climate scientist” is suggesting what they are saying that the ice will melt due to global warming (air temperature).</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado….</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
…”The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,” said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. “Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
These scientists were not alone in these fantastic claims at the time, another climate scientist, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union convention that he thought it would be <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">even worse </a>than previously predicted:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This obviously is the same 2013 represented in the graph above and this is the <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">prediction that Al Gore cited</a> when he made the same claim in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Putting aside Al Gore for a moment, ah that we could, you may be thinking that these are trained scientists, surely they know what they are doing. Well if they knew what they were doing would they be brazenly projecting an ice free Arctic Ocean when temperatures actually turned out to be colder than normal? Are Scientists who do not use scientific principles to reach conclusions really scientists?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The idea that this area of the globe is going to “melt” due to man-made global warming is just pure silliness. Despite the, as usual, attempt to put a Cassandra spin on the news, consider the implications of this <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/news/986" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">press release</a>from NASA last year on that “vulnerable” Arctic sea ice.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
After an unusually cold summer in the northernmost latitudes, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum summer extent for 2013 on Sept. 13, the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NSIDC and NASA showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.97 million square miles (5.10 million square kilometers).</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This year’s sea ice extent is substantially higher than last year’s record low minimum. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average minimum extent from 1981 to 2010.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The predictions of an ice-free Arctic made in 2007 were only off by 1.32 million square miles when Arctic Sea Ice reached its “lowest extent ever” in 2012. “Ever” actually means since 1979 when satellites started recording sea ice which was way back near the end of the disco epoch geologically speaking.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Consider this for just a moment, how much warmer would it have to be to melt what amounts to an ice-cube the size of the state of Colorado (in 2012) or Texas (2013) in the short time frame available before the long cold winter night grips the Arctic? The government paid scientists whose job it is to forecast this based on their years of experience and the most advanced and expensive climate models were off by well over a million square miles in 2012 and almost 2 million square miles in 2013.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is beyond shameful that these “scientists” had the unmitigated gall to go out and claim such irreconcilable faulty predictions in such hyperbolic terms. “The Arctic is screaming,” “The canary has died,” really?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It is essential to remember it is these very models with their temperature projections that have not only been so far off, but are still used as a basis for so many apocalyptic predictions by climate “scientists.” These continued projections of an”ice free” Arctic defy simple common sense and basic physical principles. As I write this on May 18, 2014 <a href="http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #f2a561; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">there is still ice on Lake Superior</a> which is 5000 miles south of the high Arctic and receives direct sunlight the year round.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The idea that even if, a big if, temperatures continue to rise over the next century that they will somehow melt the Arctic Ocean in the brief time span available to do so without some other unusual climatic or natural event is simply ludicrous. Everything written here is even more applicable for Antarctica where temperatures and climate conditions are even far more extreme.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #5c6063; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Perhaps though the real shame is that the scientific community has succeeded in convincing the world that if this did happen it would be a horrible thing. The fact is that it would be wonderful, a warmer environment would be a boon to life on Earth. Human, animal and plant life would all greatly benefit from an increase in global temperatures of a few degrees. There would be losers for sure, there always is, but the benefits would greatly outweigh the negative effects, something which the scientific community with their agendas and greed dare not admit or investigate while they are busy melting ice cubes in freezers.</div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-61088884959354192642014-05-14T14:42:00.000-04:002014-05-14T14:42:29.162-04:00Global warming and common sense: Alaska is melting<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
An example of how the environmental left ignores scientific facts to promote their global warming agenda</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_19171" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Alaska.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="global warming " class="wp-image-19171 size-full" height="600" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Alaska.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Alaska | PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
At the beginning of last year it was<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/07/3170980/study-alaska-got-colders-from.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> publicized</a> and widely <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/07/179137/study-alaska-got-colder-from.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">reported</a> that the<a href="http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">Alaska Climate Research Center </a>using data from NOAA weather stations throughout Alaska had determined that temperatures in Alaska had <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256188/What-global-warming-Alaska-headed-ice-age-scientists-report-states-steady-temperature-decline.html#ixzz2JiDXM2ND" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">dropped significantly</a> over the past decade.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A new report from the research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reveals that the 49th state of the union has cooled by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 2000.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The drop is described as a ‘large value for a decade,’ in the academic paper ‘The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska.’</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This was not some idle speculation but as I said a widely reported throughout the <a href="http://www.livescience.com/25907-alaska-climate-pdo.html" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">scientific community</a> and in the popular press worldwide.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
As the story from the UK Daily Mail points out, a drop in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over a decade is significant and a decade worth of data is more than just a simple anomaly. The <a href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">report’s </a>own title calls the past decade a “cooling trend”. The current climate science community will often use yearly or even seasonal anomalies to alarm the public and here we have an entire decade long trend of cooling.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Furthermore we are not talking about some random decade but rather the last decade when global temperatures especially in the northern latitudes were prophesied to rise. But rather than rising it has been been proven using the “warmist’ communities own records that temperatures in Alaska actually dropped significantly over the past decade. These findings have not been disputed.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
What may have happened in previous decades although possibly significant as well does not change the fact that the current climate in Alaska is experiencing a cooling trend. This is a fact based on actual data and research, plain and simple. All of this was brought to the worlds attention in the first week of January 2013.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So why is it that the National Wildlife Federation at the end of January issued a <a href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">report</a> which states the following ? (emphasis in original)</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States and warming is severely altering the Arctic landscape including melting permafrost. In the face of this unprecedented warming, many uniquely polar habitats—like the sea ice that polar bears, seals, and walrus require to hunt—are shrinking fast.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In what time frame is this purported warming supposed to have occurred? Obviously they can not be referring to the most recent available data since again as has been widely reported, Alaska temperatures are decreasing. The NWF must simply be ignoring recent long term changes in Alaska’s climate in order to make such a statement.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read my <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-and-common-sense-alaska-is-melting/">entire article </a>at Brenner Brief.</i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-29657760897157942852014-05-10T08:46:00.004-04:002014-05-10T08:46:50.760-04:00Scientists say CO2 is going to starve us<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Just when you thought it was safe to exhale, scientists now say that your nasty CO2 is robbing rice of its protein. You may be responsible for starving future generations with every breath you take.</div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_17639" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Wheat_Fields_after_the_Rain_1890.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="Vincent van Gogh Wheat Fields After the Rain (Wiki Commons) " class="wp-image-17639 size-full" height="586" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Wheat_Fields_after_the_Rain_1890.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Vincent van Gogh Wheat Fields after the rain<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />| CREDIT: Wiki Commons</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Sometimes there are things that are so obvious and simple to understand that to watch as seemingly rational people misrepresent reality in order to promote a distorted view of life is both disheartening and infuriating. There are things in nature and life which are basics and the very building blocks of life, carbon dioxide is one of them. We have <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">discussed this before </a>but a recent “scientific” study compels me to revisit the issue.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Before we get to the study let’s review the real benefits indeed the<a href="http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PositiveEffectsOfCO2OnAgriculture2.pdf" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> necessity of carbon dioxide</a>, (CO2) in the biosphere.</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
At a fundamental level, carbon dioxide is the basis of nearly all life on Earth, as it is the primary raw material or “food” that is utilized by plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct their tissues, which ultimately becomes the food for all animals, including humans. consequently the more CO2 in the air, the better plants grow, which has been demonstrated in literally <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">thousands</em> of laboratory and field experiments.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This is not even a debatable statement, no scientist in any field regardless of his stance on “man-made” climate change would dispute this basic biological truth. And this is a problem. This fundamental biological fact has always been an irritant to the climate cult’s agenda. It is very difficult to attack an element that literally sustains life at the most basic level. But turning life’s miracle element into something to be feared, is precisely what the climate cult continues to do. Usually however they do this by disconnecting CO2 from its primary function in nature and focus everyone’s attention on what in reality is carbon dioxide’s minor contribution to the “greenhouse” effect. When they do connect CO2 to plants and the biosphere it usually involves the tenacious connection of warming “caused by” CO2 which in turn harms plant life through droughts, floods, snow, pestilence or whatever . Seldom do the alarmist attempt to directly connect CO2 and any negative effect on plants since there simply is no such connection, until now.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
From the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27308720" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">BBC</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Rising levels of CO2 around the world will significantly impact the nutrient content of crops according to a new study.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
So we are mow being told that carbon dioxide which plants need to grow, cannot exist without, which in fact grow better, faster and with greater biomass the more CO2 that is available to them, lose nutrients as the result of increased amounts of that same CO2. Oh and of course this is no small deal either, this increased atmospheric plant food, (CO2) will cause mass starvation throughout the world.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/scientists-say-co2-is-going-to-starve-us/">my entire article</a> at Brenner Brief</i></div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-24800924485086756292014-05-08T23:06:00.000-04:002014-05-08T23:06:11.148-04:00The undefinable science of Global Warming-Unprecedented<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br /></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
The first in a series of articles on the “science” of global warming beginning with a look at the not so unprecedented term “climate change”</h2>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_15948" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 621px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Mayan-Temple-750.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="global warming" class="wp-image-15948 size-medium" height="459" scale="0" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Mayan-Temple-750-611x459.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="611" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Mayan Temple| CREDIT: J.D. Brown</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Over the past couple of decades the climate cult has sought, with varying degrees of success, to convince the masses that man-made greenhouse gasses particularly carbon dioxide are primarily responsible for global warming a term which over the years has morphed into the far wider thus less definable “climate change.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Our friendly government bureaucrats over at the Environmental Protection Agency which is a temple for the climate cult <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/://" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">define climate change</a> as:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“… <span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #151515;">any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time.”</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Like the term climate change itself, the use of descriptions such as “extended period of time” is another one of those rather ambiguous terms that the cult uses so that they can set the parameters for their theory as it fits their needs. This is not the EPA’s fault the climate science community has never actually defined the length of time which constitutes a region’s climate nor is that even possible because, well, climate changes. This is why the EPA in their description of climate change goes on to say:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #151515;"> In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Which makes sense since the<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> definition of climate</a> is:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">the</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">composite</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">or</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">generally</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">prevailing</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">weather</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">conditions</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">of</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">a</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">region,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">as </span><span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">temperature,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">air</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">pressure,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">humidity,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">precipitation, sunshine</span><span class="hwc onclk" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #9999ff;">,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">cloudiness,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">and </span><span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">winds,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">throughout</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">the</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">year,</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">averaged</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">over</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">a</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">series</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">of</span> <span class="hwc" id="hotword" style="box-sizing: border-box;">years.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Again we are left with no specific time frame in which to judge “climate change.” We just know that when the climate of a region changes from one set of observed norms to another over a “period of time” it is climate change. A rather well know though seldom commented on example of “climate change” would be the Sahara Desert which not all that long ago <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/undefinable-science-global-warming-unprecedented/.%20%20For%20example%20it%20is%20well%20known%20that%20the%20Sahara%20Desert%20has%20not%20always%20been%20a%20desert.%20%20For%20a%20period%20of%20time%20not%20all%20that%20long%20ago,%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20largest%20desert%20was%20a%20very%20fertile%20and%20lush%20paradise.%20%20So%20lush%20in%20fact%20that%20it%20provided%20an%20escape%20for%20the%20overpopulated%20peoples%20along%20the%20Nile%20River" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank">was a lush paradise</a></div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666;">“The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years,” </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In a period of time “less than 500 years” the Sahara Dessert was transformed from a desert to place where:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“Wildlife included very demanding species such as elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, and more than 30 species of fish up to 2 meters (6 feet) big,”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Then sometime around 5,500 to 7,300 years ago the “climate changed” and the lush paradise was again transformed into the desert we see today. All without benefit of the exhaust from your Ford.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Over at Penn State the current place of worship for a high priest of the climate cult, Michael, the Hockey Stick, Mann, a group of researchers recently put out a<a href="http://www.centredaily.com/2012/12/08/3429597/turn-of-the-tides-psu-researchers.html#storylink=cpy" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank"> press release </a>on a just published study which begins,</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<i>Read <a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/undefinable-science-global-warming-unprecedented/">entire article </a>at Brenner Brief</i></div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-86910404593838892222014-04-29T20:03:00.000-04:002014-04-29T20:15:03.486-04:00The global warming self perpetuating money machine<h3 style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px;">
The scientific community uses unverifiable model projections of global warming to gorge itself on taxpayer money.</h3>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crystalball.jpg" href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crystalball.jpg"><img alt="crystalball" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-14507" data-mce-src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crystalball.jpg" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crystalball.jpg" height="321" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
When discussing global warming it is important to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Wikipedia <a data-mce-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" target="_blank">defines </a>the difference this way:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
The problem with the greenhouse theory which is actually the "enhanced" greenhouse theory is that it has never truly been tested. The alleged increase of global temperatures over the past century certainly cannot be proven to be "unprecedented" since in the millions of years that the Earth has actually had a climate, it has only in been in the past couple of centuries that man has had the ability to measure temperatures and far less time than that to measure them globally.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
The scientists who promote the global warming "theory" over the past two decades have sought to prove that the increase in temperatures is unprecedented so that they can tie it to man's use of fossil fuels. They have done this most notoriously with the controversial and discredited "hockey stick" graph. Even if it could be proven that Mann's hockey stick graph were an accurate representation of temperatures, which it is not, the graph itself only goes back a thousand years and only represents the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures. In other words the infamous graph is a millennium short of the reaching the time of Christ, the rise and heyday of the Roman Empire and all the many centuries before and then of course it does leave out half of planet Earth completely.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Unable to prove their theory using the past and knowing that their shtick of blaming every single variation in the Earth's weather from snow storms to droughts on climate change is both unscientific and wearing thin to an ever more skeptical public, the climate change cult uses something which can not be proven in order to sell their "theory" climate model projections of the future. It makes sense in an underhanded way, if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Not only does the use of climate model "projections" of the future have the advantage of being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community. To show how truly unscientific this method is let's continue with the definition of a hypothesis from Wikipedia:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method<strong> requires</strong> that one can test it.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Can you test the projections of a climate model? Of course you can, you simply wait to see if the projections come true. The scientific community overcomes this basic of all scientific principles with the argument that "the projections of the models are so dire that we cannot wait for them to be proven right." This is an activist and not a scientific argument, it is also circular logic at its best. "Our models prove that we cannot wait for our models to be proven correct." How unscientific is this practice? From <a data-mce-href="http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html" href="http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html" target="_blank">An Introduction to the Scientific Method</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.<br />
Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
The accuracy of earlier model projections and how the climate change cult "tweaks" their models to get the results they want are matters for another day but let's just say that two decades of model projections tweaked or not are proving to be less than "robust" as the scientists like to say.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Brian Prat, a Professor Sedimentology, Paleontology-Geology at the University of Saskatchewan sums up the little game being played on the world’s taxpayers this way:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
"There has grown a whole industry of taxpayer-funded climate modelers whose equations can’t reproduce last week’s weather let alone past climate change at all, but whose crystal balls universally forecast impending disaster (and of course the urgent need for more research money)."</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Why is the scientific community so willing to ignore well established scientific standards and principles when it comes to global warming? In part it is that many scientists<em> are</em> activist who seek to promote agendas and not science but as always it is a good idea to "follow the money" and climate modelers are not the only ones feeding from the tax payer fed trough.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
If you have a series of "scenarios" based on model projections of future climate which are accepted as being "scientific" those projections themselves become a gravy train for other scientists to use for their own scientific hypothesis game, a game which is paid for by the world's taxpayers. A scientist can take the projections of future warming which cannot be verified and apply for grants to do studies based on those unproven "scenarios." The practice is so common now that very few in the scientific community even raise an eyebrow less alone raise the alarm at this very unscientific practice.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
To review, global warming is "proven" by the computer model projections of future climate which of course cannot be verified. These unverified findings are then used by other scientists to conduct studies which reach other unverifiable conclusions. On some occasions these second studies are used for even more studies to reach even more unverifiable conclusions. Unverifiable hypothesis (climate model projections) become the foundation for more and more unverifiable studies and upon mountains of such studies the global warming scam is built and billions upon billions are spent not the least of which are on the studies themselves.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
There have been literally thousands upon thousands of such unscientific studies done during the "climate change era." Here is just a recent example from a<a data-mce-href="http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/warming-world-drives-hurricane-forming-winds-study-says-n91596" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/warming-world-drives-hurricane-forming-winds-study-says-n91596" target="_blank"> news story</a> at NBC News about "possible" future hurricane intensity. One way to quickly identify the lack of scientific seriousness behind a story is the use of the word "could" or "may" as in the opening paragraph of this story.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Wind-whipped mayhem may ratchet up as the global climate adjusts to ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to a new study.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Then of course the qualifiers which explain exactly how uncertain the findings really are and in this case they actually use the word caveats.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
There are caveats, however. Just because the winds associated with the waves will become more intense in a warming world does not necessarily mean that hurricanes will be stronger or more frequent in the future.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Well then why do the study? But the statement why the entire global warming charade has no real scientific integrity, forget the caveats for a moment, is the key phrase here "in a warming world." Their entire study is based on the premise that there will be a warming world but their warming world is nothing more than a computer game. They can no more "prove" that the future will be warmer than I can prove my Dolphins will win the Super Bowl in 2050. It is a hypothesis, an unverifiable hypothesis at that. This "scientific" study is based upon an unscientific premise which makes this study unscientific as well.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<div class="ember-view" id="ember985">
The scientists based their study on 17 model simulations of Earth's climate with carbon dioxide concentrations about double what they are today, which is the current trajectory for the end of this century if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked.</div>
<div class="ember-view" id="ember986">
Under this scenario, they found....</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ember-view" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Model simulations are not facts and scenarios are not real. The modelers can make the future be anything they want it to be. Even if they are honest in their programming the science and the variables which go into their calculations are more complex than even the human brain. For the climate community and their well-funded enablers throughout the scientific world, the models are really all that they have. Most important of all though the model projections are the goose that keeps laying the golden egg. The model projections are what the scientific community uses to generate fear and funding to keep their self-perpetuating money machine pumping out cash. This is why the scientific community fails to follow basic scientific principles, to follow them would be to shut off the cash flow.</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-86475859191404730492014-04-21T13:30:00.000-04:002014-04-21T13:30:00.866-04:00Notable Quotes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cu2nite.com.au/ldc/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/52cm-showgirl-burlesque-long-gloves-red.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.cu2nite.com.au/ldc/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/52cm-showgirl-burlesque-long-gloves-red.jpg" /></a></div>
<b>"Gradually I have found myself more impressed with the arguments of the climate change skeptics--the reviled "deniers"--than with the Michael Mann school of hockey stickology or the IPCC striptease in which it discards its pretences to "settled science" a glove at a time without ever getting down to bare truth." </b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/outside_the_consensusnotes_of_.html#sthash.2zXsczAv.dpuf">Peter Wood </a>Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-85333885495733396442014-04-20T19:00:00.000-04:002014-05-12T00:36:51.949-04:00The AFP finds climate change in underground pipes<h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></h2>
<div class="mceTemp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<dl class="wp-caption aligncenter" data-mce-style="width: 460px;" id="attachment_10775" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: #f3f3f3; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); margin: 10px auto; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center; width: 460px;">
<dt class="wp-caption-dt" style="-webkit-user-drag: none;"><a data-mce-href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Angono-Petroglyphs.jpg" href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Angono-Petroglyphs.jpg" style="-webkit-user-drag: none;"><img alt="Angono Petroglyphs | Photo Credit: www.photobucket.com" class="size-full wp-image-10775" data-mce-src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Angono-Petroglyphs.jpg" height="300" src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Angono-Petroglyphs.jpg" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" width="450" /></a></dt>
<dd class="wp-caption-dd" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 4px 5px;">Angono Petroglyphs | Photo Credit: www.photobucket.com</dd></dl>
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
When I read the headline "Climate Change threatens 5,000-year-old artwork in the Philippines" on a n<em>AFP</em> <a data-mce-href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/20/climate-change-threatens-5000-year-old-artwork-in-the-phllippines/" href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/20/climate-change-threatens-5000-year-old-artwork-in-the-phllippines/">article </a>my first thought was that it must be about sea level rise threatening the ancient artwork which are carvings known as p<span data-mce-style="color: #424242;" style="color: #424242;">etroglyphs</span>. As I read the article I quickly realized my first assumption about sea level being the danger was incorrect when I came to this:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">The carvings are in mountains about 90 minutes' drive from Manila that only a few decades ago were entirely forested.</span></blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Obviously sea level rise was not an immediate concern so I continued reading the article searching for the climate change which was "threatening" the artwork. The article was filled with interesting facts about the carvings including :</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">The carvings were first documented by acclaimed Philippine artist Carlos Francisco in 1965 while he was leading a Boy Scout troop on a hike.</span></blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
I also learned that the carvings were on land owned by a real estate developer who donated the hillside where the carvings are located back to the National Museum, which maintains them. The article seems to imply a certain disappointment that more land was not set aside for the historic site since "upper-class" homes, a golf course and a road are nearby but the "underfunded" museum is unable to adequately protect the 127 stone age carvings which are classified as national treasures.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
However after reading the entire article I was unable to determine exactly what "climate change" was "threatening" these precious artifacts. Perhaps, I thought, I had missed something so I re-read the article and in order of their appearance here are all the listed dangers to the artwork.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<em><span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">...encroaching urbanisation, vandals and the ravages of nature are growing threats....</span></em><br />
<em>...<span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">But that has done little to stem the powerful tide of neglect....</span></em><br />
<em>...<span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">Wind and rain, as well as plant roots creeping through the stone, have also damaged the soft rock where the carvings are etched....</span></em><br />
<em>...vandalism is also a constant worry.</em><br />
<div class="rpu-sortable ui-state-disabled" data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">
<em>People have scrawled their names on the rock and there are slash marks on some carvings that archaeologists have determined were only made recently.</em></div>
<div class="rpu-sortable ui-state-disabled" data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">
<em>Mining at a nearby gravel pit a few years ago also shook the ancient site...</em></div>
<div class="rpu-sortable ui-state-disabled" data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">
<em>... new housing developments nearby would mean more underground pipes, which could weaken the hillside.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="rpu-sortable ui-state-disabled" data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Nowhere in the article is there a connection between "climate change" in any of its alleged manifestations and the ancient Philippine carvings.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Interesting enough the carvings were put on an endangered list back in 1996 before the "ravages" of climate change were well understood.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<span data-mce-style="color: #555555;" style="color: #555555;">The World Monuments Fund, a New York-based private group that works to protect historical sites, placed the Angono Petroglyphs on its list of endangered monuments in 1996 and has provided help in their preservation.</span></blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
So I went to the<em> World Monument Fund'</em>s <a data-mce-href="http://www.wmf.org/project/angono-petroglyphs" href="http://www.wmf.org/project/angono-petroglyphs" target="_blank">web site</a> in search of the "climate change" that was responsible for its inclusion on their list. Here is what they have to say about the dangers confronting these world archaeological treasures.</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<div data-mce-style="color: #424242;" style="color: #424242;">
....Almost immediately after they were brought to public attention, the National Museum of the Philippines made several molds of the carvings. Subsequently, the site underwent cleaning and preliminary conservation during the 1980s. By the early 1990s, the Angono Petroglyphs were threatened by regional development pressure. After investigations, the importance of the site was fully recognized and measures were taken to protect the area and the carvings.</div>
<div data-mce-style="color: #424242;" style="color: #424242;">
Although granted protection from total destruction, there was fear that new road construction and blasting into the hill behind the petroglyphs might have threatened the cave’s stability. The reshaped earth also raised concerns about the increasing threat of water damage to the site. Uncontrolled vegetation and fauna had causes erosion of the petroglyphs over time.</div>
</blockquote>
<div data-mce-style="color: #424242;" style="color: #424242; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
The website goes on to explain the wonderful work that the <em>WMF</em> has done to help protect the site, but nowhere in their history of involvement with ancient carvings as in the <em>AFP</em> story is there anything at all remotely resembling a "climate change" danger to the artwork.</div>
<div data-mce-style="color: #424242;" style="color: #424242; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
Although this is an extreme example, it has become all too common in the world's media that there need be no true direct link to any real climate event let alone scientific evidence to "pin" climate change on negative occurrences. If, as in this case, mankind's advancement plays a role in the event then it seems to be almost accepted media practice to just blame "climate change" knowing that an indoctrinated citizenry will translate it all to mean "man-made global warming caused this."</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-37962854969033505162014-04-17T08:21:00.000-04:002014-05-12T13:58:02.534-04:00The Real Green Machine<i>(Re-posted from<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/"> my column</a> in The Brenner Brief)</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<header class="entry-header" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
<br />
</h1>
<h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
CO2 not the villain in global warming fight</h1>
</header><br />
<div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_9029" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%; width: 760px;">
<a href="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/forest.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="global warming fight" class=" wp-image-9029 " src="http://www.brennerbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/forest-350x196.jpg" height="420" scale="0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="750" /></a><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 700; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
Appalachian Cove Forest|CREDIT: Wiki Commons</div>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">
Global warming <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="13a2f1e0-9f77-4725-8ee4-ce9a8726d791" style="box-sizing: border-box;">fight pointing</span> fingers at CO2</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
A recent <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reuters</em><a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/13/uk-climatechange-un-idUKBREA3C06320140413" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"> article </a>has a headline which illustrates just how insane the global warming fight has become. Without the least bit of embarrassment or for that matter objective analysis <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reuters</em> headline reads “Act fast to curb global warming or extract CO2 from the air-UN.” Extract CO2 from the air?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The entire premise of the “man-made” global warming hypothesis is predicated on a narrative, a narrative which <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="2b48d0d7-b186-44ff-8973-4f15582fd702" style="box-sizing: border-box;">itself</span> is predicated on pseudo-science. The narrative is that CO2 (carbon dioxide) being a greenhouse gas is warming the atmosphere and man’s burning of fossil fuels is responsible for this increased CO2 and thus global warming. The first point that needs to be understood is that CO2 is not toxic, not pollution and not even that “<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="503107ab-b30a-44e2-8c73-fb5a7a9e8297" style="box-sizing: border-box;">smokey</span>” substance coming out of smoke stacks or car exhausts you see every time a news agency does a report on “climate change.” Carbon dioxide is a harmless invisible trace gas that is vital for all life on planet Earth. Does the term <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/11/11/shine-on-you-crazy-diamond-why-humans-are-carbon-based-lifeforms/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">“carbon based life”</a> ring a bell?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements – all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="14f20f3c-942f-4e21-9deb-f0e375386eec" style="box-sizing: border-box;">elements it</span>seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon. It would be impossible for life on earth to exist without carbon. Carbon is the main component of sugars, proteins, fats, DNA, muscle tissue, pretty much everything in your body…</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Carbon dioxide is after all what we exhale, perhaps the UN ought to recommend periods of mandatory breath holding as a means to “extract” CO2 from the air. But Co2, what little of it that there is in the air, is absolutely vital to our planet. As the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson explains:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
“The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">there is so little of it.</span> A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reuters</em> article gives away this important fact when they explain one of the methods being contemplated <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="21dab3a7-6deb-4808-a810-6b662e3d9295" style="box-sizing: border-box;">to remove</span> CO2 from the atmosphere. The<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="97f54a95-113c-4e46-b3cf-4328aba6ae06" style="box-sizing: border-box;">proposal which</span> ironically is listed under the sub-heading of “Riskier Options” in the article is this:</div>
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Simpler methods to extract greenhouse gases from the air are to plant trees, which soak up greenhouse gases as they grow.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The truth is that this “simpler method” this “Riskier Option” is actually an ongoing natural process that needs no administration <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="fb3e7f16-6039-46b0-b242-7d03c7cba551" style="box-sizing: border-box;">from</span> an international political body, it is called the carbon cycle. This particular aspect of CO2 extraction has been a part of <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="d8659072-a247-45c0-a1b8-be7b610d4aec" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Earth’s ecosystem</span> for millions of years. Even if you buy into the idea that “man-made” carbon dioxide is heating the Earth any place outside of computer model forecasts of a <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="bc0225d3-69f6-4bad-a938-ced10d01f239" style="box-sizing: border-box;">political</span> and financially motivate cadre of activist scientists, Old Ma Nature is fully capable of absorbing our excesses. In fact nature <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">thrives</em> on this particular man-made excess.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Back in 2003 as the global warming scare was beginning to be hyped as a cataclysmic man-made disaster a group of scientists at NASA’s Earth Observatory <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">published an article</a><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">,</i> entitled “<i style="box-sizing: border-box;">Global Garden Gets Greener</i>” where they reached the following conclusion:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover change that <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="399cbcd4-6e85-42c8-850e-c2666ca6f9d2" style="box-sizing: border-box;">continue</span> to accompany an ever-growing human population, <b style="box-sizing: border-box;">the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth</b>. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Nino-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The study represented a time frame when the Earth actually<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> was</em> warming. The fact that there has been no discernible heating of the Earth’s atmosphere for sixteen years ought to have buried this agenda driven “theory” but given the investment in it by so many powerful institutions and governments it is doubtful it will die an easy death. The lack of <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="5dd39674-a4e8-404c-a504-c40a525a9b1b" style="box-sizing: border-box;">warming however</span> does not mean that mankind has not continued to pour this plant food, CO2, into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities. This disconnect between the climate cult’s projections for warming as opposed to the reality of the world we live in, has caused an ever more frantic effort by the cult to explain away reality.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
It has also been a boon for plant life on Earth, though propaganda by the “experts” would lead you to believe the opposite in 2009. Despite evidence to the contrary and relying only on their cherished computer models the alarmist scientific community declared that the Amazon forest would soon wither and die away due to droughts. This they proclaimed was the direct result of mankind’s insatiable desire to advance through the burning of fossil fuels. Their Cassandra calls were echoed throughout the media such as<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"> this from </a>the<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"> UK Guardian</i><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="5ce1d245-f783-43d6-8841-8435c39437fe" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> :</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rain forest, according to a devastating new <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="cb9bef2f-0d82-49c4-818c-a1c4b9e72101" style="box-sizing: border-box;">study which</span> predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises. <b style="box-sizing: border-box;">The research, by some of Britain’s leading experts on climate change, shows that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions will fail to save the emblematic South American jungle, </b>the destruction of which has become a powerful symbol of human impact on the planet. Up to 85% of the forest could be lost if spiraling greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the experts said. But even under the most optimistic climate change scenarios<b style="box-sizing: border-box;">, the destruction of large parts of the forest is “irreversible”</b></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
Irreversible is a pretty definitive claim and one that one would hope that scientists would not use lightly or without definitive proof, but science just isn’t what it used to be and what was irreversible in 2009, well we shall let the facts speak for themselves.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
On the home page of <a href="http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/people/professors/prof-ranga-b-myneni/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">Prof. <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="76456bd8-8bb4-4c9f-8267-fc7eac99e11f" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="47e7ebe8-a160-4b61-8f48-1a15ebe201e8" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="4fe36fba-c7d5-49a8-9f96-6a3005fd033e" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="5153f836-ccd6-40c8-9b5a-e647b03ab945" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ranga</span></span></span></span> B. <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="c618de5e-9044-47ce-9cbe-aa180dba7b5c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="7f3ad812-8100-4441-b6ef-59d19ca30e11" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="fb43c5f5-454e-4eb4-abd0-e1bca127bd5d" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="dbbdcdcc-8436-4a7c-82a2-24ad6b9cf9a7" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Myneni’s</span></span></span></span> </a>Climate and Vegetation research group in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University is this <a href="http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">remarkable map</a> of the planet Earth.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://http//cliveg.bu.edu/images/greening-earth.jpg" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;"><img alt="" class="aligncenter" src="http://cliveg.bu.edu/images/greening-earth.jpg" height="354" scale="0" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: auto; margin: 0px auto 24px; max-width: 100%;" width="546" /></a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
What is remarkable about this map is not the areas that are green, you would expect that, but these areas are where the Earth has become <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">greener</em>in the past three decades. In other <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="0a9c4f35-e4b6-4119-9d4c-a1fed646f71d" style="box-sizing: border-box;">words what</span> you are seeing based on actual satellite observations is the greening of the Earth. But it gets better.<a href="https://ecocast.adobeconnect.com/_a954016155/p4qjfma87ti/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">Studies </a>show the reasons behind this remarkable greening and this is where the reality of life’s natural processes deviate sharply from the computer model world of the climate cult. The study shows that 50% of this<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </i><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">increased greening</b> <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="56d4442f-2808-41b4-83e8-4963aa9e7f37" style="box-sizing: border-box;">is</span> the result of “climate constraint” e.g.<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="d1ab8073-3d8c-4381-ae40-2c36f4365516" style="box-sizing: border-box;">temperature</span>, water or solar radiation having been<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </i>relieved, meaning improvements for plant growth. For example an area of land where plant growth was once limited due to lack of water has, in the past three decades, seen an increase in water and therefore there has been additional “greening”. But <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="75c98d02-150a-4155-837e-e5a50be32563" style="box-sizing: border-box;">the more remarkable</span> finding is that the reason for the remaining increased greening is<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"> <b style="box-sizing: border-box;">the direct result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.</b></i></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
CO2, as we were taught in grade school biology far from being a killer is in fact the very breath of life, it is after all what you breathe out, and plants need in order to grow and provide us with oxygen. <a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/where-does-atmospheric-oxygen-come-from.htm" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">Ninety Eight percent of oxygen in the atmosphere</a> is the result of photosynthesis by plants and other organisms; photosynthesis is not possible without carbon dioxide.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
This reality could no longer be denied when in 2013 a group of scientists had to <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="89351cf7-8b83-4856-a547-54727e3cc9c4" style="box-sizing: border-box;">back track</span> on their previous predictions of the Amazon’s demise and admit that they had not factored in the positive effect of CO2 on the Amazon’s ecosystem and like the gods they believe they are issued a reprieve for the <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="cc51153c-b1fc-44e8-b840-dad6889fd5ff" style="box-sizing: border-box;">worlds</span> largest <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="d59504f6-e7ac-40ff-9546-ca3a79a01362" style="box-sizing: border-box;">rain forest</span>. Evidently nothing is irreversible or actually “settled science”. From<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </i><i style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-climate-amazon-idUSBRE91510O20130206" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; background-color: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; color: #469bd1; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;">Reuters</a> </i>in 2013:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #888888; margin: 40px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed <b style="box-sizing: border-box;">because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer</b>, a study showed on Wednesday. The <b style="box-sizing: border-box;">boost to growth from CO2</b>, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
In fact the new <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="29404ce5-3d88-452b-851a-79f321cff670" style="box-sizing: border-box;">study which</span> factors in the positive effects of CO2 <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="d82dd8ea-31b0-427d-accb-0f3a67e36fa8" style="box-sizing: border-box;">shows</span> that the nasty bi-product of the industrial age, CO2, is a net positive to the Amazon rain forest. The cult in its quest to scare the world into submission to their agenda had chosen to leave the calculations, intentionally or not, out of their revered climate models until the science showing the opposite results became overwhelming. It is entirely possible that climate models were not previously capable of forecasting the positive effects of CO2 on plant <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="3479a1cc-066b-4854-b8ff-bf333b0dee4b" style="box-sizing: border-box;">life however</span> the fact that CO2 is a plant fertilizer and is a boon to plant life is not some new scientific discovery, it is <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="cc7a7f44-dc02-431f-b5a8-ae08abb74124" style="box-sizing: border-box;">well-known biological fact</span>going back to the eighteenth century. They just chose to ignore that grade school biology in order to advance their doom and gloom “scenarios.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 26px; padding: 0px;">
The simple truth is that far from being the scourge of planet Earth, CO2 is its life milk. Mankind in our advancement from caves to space <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" id="a9264af1-5d25-4c14-847b-e407b3a61474" style="box-sizing: border-box;">has remarkably</span>, some might say divinely, stumbled upon a green machine which we should proudly embrace called the Industrial Revolution. Carbon Dioxide released by our burning of fossil fuels far from being destructive is in fact a blessing to both plants and mankind and that is the reality which is being denied by a scientific community which has lost all perspective in its quest to advance political causes.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448149162776456569.post-52714849401739473412014-04-07T08:33:00.000-04:002014-05-12T00:36:51.898-04:00The truth never needs such methods,The fact that the UN's IPCC uses inaccurate and unproven climate models to promote fear in order to obtain influence for their agendas is reprehensible but to be expected from a corrupt organization such as the UN. But what is truly disturbing and will lead to the collapse of societies if not corrected is that once great institutions, both scientific and political not only do not call out this obvious fraudulent scam, they leach onto them for their own gain.<br />
<br />
You cannot continue to build your foundation on lies without consequences. The fall out from the collapse of the "climate change" lie is growing in direct proportion to the height of it's promoter's influence on society. These lies are of such importance to their benefactors that historically lies of such magnitudes have led to genocide in order to protect them. For all of our advances, we are but one lie away from barbarism. If power is not taken away from the "alarmist" segment of those who wield this lie, they will use that power to destroy "deniers." We are just a few short years from inquisitions of those who do not "believe."<br />
<br />
As the man once said "you shall know them by their fruits" the fruits of the climate change cultist are growing ever more panicky and increasingly dictatorial. The truth never needs such methods, the truth is obvious to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/07/un-wgii-report-relies-on-exaggerated-climate-model-results/">IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results</a><br />
<br />
Jerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458118248590461987noreply@blogger.com1