Trump Slashing Obama Legacy in Epic Fashion

One of the key campaign promises that then-candidate Donald Trump ran on and that likely contributed to his successful election was his oft-repeated vow to cut through the bureaucratic red tape holding back the economy by slashing unnecessary government regulations.

According to Reuters, it appears that President Trump and his administration are making good on that promise, as the White House just announced that they had either killed or removed from consideration some 800 different proposed regulations set forth under former President Barack Obama’s administration that had not yet been finalized or taken effect.

At least 469 planned regulations had been withdrawn and some 391 other regulations already in the active process had been reclassified as long-term or inactive in order to allow for “further careful review.”

The administration isn’t done there, as some 300 other energy production-related regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior, would be delayed, reviewed and possibly rescinded.

And that is just from those three departments. This process is playing out in virtually every department and agency across the entirety of the executive branch.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said that this was evidence that the administration was addressing and diminishing “that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people.”

Along those lines, the Washington Examiner reported on another bit of related good news involving Trump’s agenda to cut back on government regulations.

Our readers will no doubt recall that one of Trump’s first executive orders stipulated that for every new regulation that was proposed, two old regulations would have to be done away with.

Trump’s administration has actually done even better than that in practice; in fact, eight times better, as they are averaging 16 old regulations killed for every new rule put forward.

“It’s really the beginning of a kind of fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation of where we’re going with regulation,” explained Neomi Rao, administrator of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Rao also revealed that the goal of what is being called “MAGAnomics” is to reach three percent economic growth, largely spurred on by cutting regulations and providing businesses more room to hire and expand.

She further added that, unlike prior regulatory reports from previous administrations which didn’t track deregulation at all, future reports would indeed feature a column highlighting killed regulations.

Just for a bit of context regarding Trump’s deregulation from the Washington Examiner: the OMB pointed out that under the last five months of Obama’s administration, some $6.8 billion in new rules were imposed on the economy. In comparison, Trump has imposed less than $0 in his first six months.

Similarly, Obama added $3.1 billion in new regulatory costs in his first six months, while Trump has instead saved an estimated $22 million thus far.

This is what we voted for, and we are thrilled to see this major campaign promise regarding deregulation being fulfilled. So is our nation’s economy.

H/T Washington Free Beacon

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know that Trump has been keeping his word in terms of cutting back burdensome regulations.

HUGE! Solar Power Generates 300x More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear (Video) :: The Last Great Stand

I’m going to go out on a limb, and suggest that if I was brave enough to tell a room full of rabid liberals and academics several weeks ago that solar power was more dangerous to the environment than coal or nuclear power combined, it would have been a safe bet that I’d have been ridiculed, personally attacked, or perhaps worse by room of said rabid liberals.   

I probably would have heard things like, “Duh, everyone knows that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied,” and everyone also knows solar power is better for the environment than coal, or nuclear energy, etc.  Duh! That’s soooo “settled science.”

Sadly, that type of idiocy is to be expected when those talking would rather commit to memory that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied, than fill their devoid little heads with anything factual. First of all, news flash: The infamous 97% consensus line is nothing more than an urban legend built on a TOTAL lie. If memory serves me right, factually (that word liberals hate),, 97% out of a total of a handful of California scientists said climate change cannot be denied. Ooops.  

 Furthermore, a new study now revealed that solar power actually generates 300x more toxic waste than nuclear power, and since social justice warriors have been ramming solar power down society’s throats for as long as they have without knowing all the facts (as usual), now society could have a massive problem on our hands. Well done once again social justice warriors. Well done you fools. In the following video, Right Wing News reviews the horrific findings from the new study… 

Young Conservatives writes:

Liberals are always pushing the nation toward solar power because, they imagine, it is “cleaner” than any other power source. However, a new study finds that solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear reactors!

 

The new study by the group Environmental Progress finds that the manufacturing of solar panels is fraught with toxic materials, Daily Caller reported.

The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for, but very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.

Wow, that is revelatory.

“The problem with waste from solar is that it isn’t handled as well as nuclear waste,” Dr. Jeff Terry, a professor of nuclear physics involved in energy research at the Illinois Institute of Technology, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are two types of waste from solar. Waste from the manufacturing scene and waste from the solar panel after it has gone through its useful life. There are materials in those that if they leached out, it wouldn’t be good.

The group noted that as the years pass we will soon discover that all this toxic waste will become a problem as older panels need to be replaced or repaired.

“The magnitude of the waste problem from solar is a lot larger than nuclear just because of energy density,” Terry said. “Per pound of waste generated, you get so much more power from nuclear. You need a lot more material to generate from solar and wind than you do from nuclear.”

There is also the problem that our waste industry is not yet familiar with the toxic materials in solar panels and is not geared to deal with it.

“All forms of energy create byproduct waste materials from their initial construction, operation, and eventual disposal,” Lake Barrett, former deputy director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told The DCNF.. “Society has over 50 years of exhaustive scientific experience with safely managing and technical disposal of nuclear waste, but very little knowledge of renewable energy waste management and disposal.”

And if old solar panel are simply buried in landfills we may have a toxic mess seeping into the ground that wee are woefully unprepared to deal with, the experts say.

Interestingly, the experts also point out that radioactive waste from nuclear power industry eventually does deteriorate and become harmless — even if it takes hundreds of years — but heavy metals are toxic forever and will seep into the environment seriously hurting the land.

As you can see, there is a lot of the mess from solar panels that we just aren’t prepared for.

But, it’s “cleaner,” right? Riiiiight.

 

 

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data” | Zero Hedge

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

 
 

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

 

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

 

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

 

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

 
 

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

 
 

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

 

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

 

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:

global-warming-data1

(Via ZeroHedge.com)

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science ⋆ The Constitution

Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science

Atmospheric Pressure, Not ‘Greenhouse Gases’ Are Responsible for the “Greenhouse Effect”

 

Scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have a unique and extremely elegant peer-reviewed and published research paper entitled ‘New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model’ that proves that the accused Greenhouse Gases (Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapor (H2O), etc.) are actually innocent of the mistaken claims that they are the cause of Climate Change and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

Their work comes out of left field; it provides a shocking new paradigm heretofore unbeknown to science; it is physically plausible, and it proves beyond a doubt that greenhouses gases cannot cause, in principle, the global warming observed since 1850. In other words, we now have written
Scientific proof that humans are not responsible for climate change on Earth.

However, the problem now is that both believers and skeptics of anthropogenic-caused climate change have a difficult time accepting the Nikolov-Zeller discovery, because:

  • The proposed mechanism (supported by NASA planetary data) was not taught in school.
  • In addition, NZ’s adopted macro-level (top-down) approach does not explicitly include natural processes such as radiant heat trapping by free atmospheric trace ‘greenhouse’-gases assumed
    a priori’ to be true for the last 190 years, but never proven.

The Nikolov-Zeller discovery points to the fact that fundamental theoretical misconceptions can still occur in science despite the high-technology information environment of the modern world.

Rather than argue about global temperature trends or what the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to a CO­2 increase might be, Nikolov and Zeller decided to go back to the basics taking inspiration from Copernicus, who propose the revolutionary heliocentric model of the Solar System that was later mathematically proven by Johannes Kepler.

Nikolov and Zeller divined three (3) fundamental questions that most climate scientists do not consider worth asking or thinking about:

  1. What would the mean global temperatures () of the rocky planets Venus, Earth, Mars, and the moons Triton and Titan be if they didn’t have atmospheres?
  2. Might the same physical principles determine the global temperatures () of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton? In other words, is Earth a special case in terms of its climate, or is it part of a cosmic physical continuum?
  3. What are the fundamental controllers of the long-term average equilibrium global surface temperature of a planet or moon?

Analyzing vetted NASA data from various space exploration missions conducted over the past three (3) decades, Nikolov and Zeller found that the Earth’s 30-year equilibrium surface temperature is quite stable and fully explainable in the context of an interplanetary physical continuum.

They discovered that the real factors responsible for the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ are:

  • The Total Surface Air Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere, and
  • The Earth’s distance to the Sun – Enabling computation of the available solar heat-energy;

By applying their PTE Effect theory to compute and accurately predict the 30-year mean global surface temperature of Earth.  Likewise, by knowing extraterrestrial data-parameters for Mars, Venus, Moon, Titan and Triton, they can also make predictions for other celestial bodies.

Amazingly, as it turns out, their model (empirically derived from NASA data) does not need any information about atmospheric composition to reliably calculate Earth’s or other celestial bodies’ mean global surface temperature!

In other words, the amounts of greenhouse gases are not needed nor relevant.

The Figure below encapsulates the new finding explained in the scientific paper by Nikolov & Zeller (2017):

Figure: On this graph, is the actual observed 30-year mean equilibrium global surface temperature of a planetary body, while is the body’s mean global surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere. The ratio shown on the vertical axis represents the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) of a planet or moon also known as the Natural Greenhouse Effect. The graph implies that the background thermal effect (i.e. the ‘greenhouse effect’) of a planetary atmosphere is only a function of the total air pressure and does not depend on the atmospheric chemical composition.

In other words, the Greenhouse Effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect and not a radiative phenomenon driven by heat-absorbing & re-radiative gases as currently believed. Hence, carbon emissions cannot affect the global climate.

The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is virtually zero!

Some 500 years ago, Copernicus simplified the complicated “Earth-Centered” model describing planetary retrogressions that accounted for the apparent erratic movement of the planets & sun around the Earth by conceptually observing Earth from afar and recognizing that the existing theory was based on a false premise (i.e., the Earth was at the Center). He correctly discovered that the Earth and other planets rotated around the Sun eliminating the apparent erratic movements and complicated prediction equations.

Similarly, the study by Nikolov & Zeller (2017) simplifies the understanding of the physics of climate by taking a similar broad extra-terrestrial perspective which is based on established scientific principles of Physics and Thermodynamics which prove that the powerful Atmospheric Pressure force caused by the huge weight of the Earth’s Atmosphere (i.e., ~5 Billion-Million Metric-Tons) results in a Pressure force at the Earth’s Surface below 18,000 ft. of 10 Metric-Tons/sq. meter which drives the Pressure Induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect amplifying the available Solar Heat-Energy that creates the PTE “Greenhouse”-warming Effect.

The Nikolov-Zeller PTE Effect theory completely accounts for why the Earth and other celestial bodies with an atmosphere are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres – Replacing the current ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect’ hypothesis that has never been empirically proven in the last 190 years since it was first postulated.

Similar to the way a Diesel Engine’s piston compresses gases (only constant, non-cyclical) creating pressure that enhances the existing heat in each cylinder to reach the temperature needed to ignite the fuel – The huge mass of the Earth’s atmosphere’s gas molecules, being compressed by the natural pull of gravity, provides the constant Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) of the available Solar Heat-Energy which results in the PTE ‘Greenhouse Effect’ that keeps our planet habitably warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (i.e., a global mean temperature of approximately 58oF with our atmosphere vs. below 0oF without an atmosphere).

Making this new climate-science paradigm most promising is the fact that the Nikolov-Zeller discovery:

  • Is based on established and straight-forward scientific principles following rules of Physics such as: Charles’ Law, The Ideal Gas Law, Dalton’s Law, etc. which are able to be validated empirically.
  • Is applicable to not only our Earth, but has been shown to also apply to other celestial bodies in our solar system (Earth, Mars, Venus, & the Moons: Titan, Triton and Earth’s) using vetted NASA empirical data.
  • Appears to also be Universally Applicable to other celestial bodies within our solar system as well as beyond, since their discovery is based on solid scientific laws of physics of the universe.

Their findings also provide new insight as to why the man-made UN IPCC-supported Global Climate Models (GCMs) based on the radiative ‘Greenhouse Gas’ concept and assumptions consistently fail to predict observed global temperature trends, hence they should not be used for policy decision making.

More information on the Science of their discovery is presented in a video by Ned Nikolov, use this link:

The London Climate Change Conference 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L82YMAuhjvw).


References:

Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Volokin D, ReLlez L (2014) On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect. SpringerPlus 3:723, doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-723. http://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

NB: Volkin and ReLlez are pseudonyms for Nikolov and Zeller.

The Latest Fake Climate Change Information – Freedom Outpost

By Leon Puissegur

We had a recent article on Global Warming/Climate Change, but this one is going to show just how the entire idea of this is nothing more than a very huge hoax to extract huge sums of money from the United States to give to nations who have no skin whatsoever in this game. It is a total and unequivocal lie brought to the people by Al Gore and his professor Roger Revelle who had done the global warming idea just to obtain grants. Al Gore has gotten rich on his selling of the paper showing CO2 was stopped when it in most cases was never stopped or even pumped into the ground, although some has been, it will never amount to the amount needed to stop CO2 production which is also produced by our exhaling of air as we breath.

Let us look at the last sentence first, we breathe in air, which is mostly Nitrogen with a small mix of other gases including oxygen of which we need to live. But when we exhale, we get rid of Carbon Dioxide. So based upon some ideas, just being alive contributes to Global Warming? Now we know that is stupid but from here we will show how others have shown the entire ideas of global warming and climate change are both vague ideas which cannot really be born out to be 100 percent accurate.

In an article from June 23, 2014 by Mike Adams titled Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions, Mike Adams shows that NASA and NOAA have both been caught red-handed as he states in the article.  

Mr. Adams wrote:

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

If one goes to the web site they will be able to view all the charts to see how they were changed to make it look like both of these government agencies wanted them to look. Here we see that the Obama administration, holding to the fraudulent ideas of GW/CC, promoted the fake ideas to ensure the United States would lose great amounts of money, we will show this a little later from another article proving the Paris Accords were never any good for the people of the United States.

With the election of President Trump we see through his actions that he knew full well that President Obama did not know how to negotiate anything and in most cases, he must have been told to just go along with what they present. This seems to be totally evident as will be shown just how bad of a deal the Paris Accords were for the United States. For now we will visit the FAKE GW/CC ideology. Mr. Adams goes on to state:

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

We know what computer models do.   We see it on the weather stations all the time.  According to the computer models, we are supposed to get so much rain here and in reality, it is either above or below the computer models. Computer models are programmed and can be programmed to show what is not real. Mr. Adams seems to show this to be very true in his article. Based just upon this we can see where GW/CC is about as real as the Easter Bunny.

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Seeing that President Obama had helped the cause of Fake GW/CC seems to show that the United States was shoveled a huge pile of prefabricated ideas that never met the real world and like the Ex-president Obama, they both lived in delusional worlds. Now let us move on to another article, which shows how much money, and for what reason the United States was to pay it in 2020.

Allow us to select a few choice words from this article to further prove how bad the Paris Accords are and why they have nothing at all to do with GW/CC.

At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

Here we now see the real idea for the Paris Accords, to redistribute the wealth of our nation and other wealthy nations to nations with little or no money. All the while allowing China and India to not contribute a penny to this at all while also not having to comply with the Paris Accord. This may well have been a deal even worse than the Iran deal. Our nation was to contribute $100billion a year and with our economy like it is now, how could we do that and keep our people working?

The author goes on:

He wonders why neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India.

Now with the open book showing that the Paris Accords were not in the best interest of the United States, we have to wonder what was Obama doing signing an agreement like this? It is so very revealing that now that this is out, we have elected a President that will not sign an agreement that makes the United States look like a fool. It is no wonder that the world leaders were laughing at Obama for his ineptness. Vahrenholt goes on to state even more.

Vahrenholt calculated the 2030 per capita emissions China would be allowed by the Paris Accord:

In 2030 Europeans would have to lower their emissions to 4 tonnes per capita, while China’s would be allowed to rise to 14 tonnes per capita and the USA would have to fall to 10 tonnes per capita. One has to ask, who signed, cheered and celebrated such an agreement and welcome it with tears of joy?

Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China.

Overall the Paris Accord will hardly have any effect on total emissions.

This just seems to prove the idea of GW/CC is nothing more than a way to have the rich nations distribute their hard earned dollars to an idea that only moves money from the rich to the poor and even that is questionable since the poor will never see the money as it is used by the very people who came up with the idea to travel the world and make it look like they are doing something when they are just holding nonsense meetings.

In Vahrenholt’s view the agreement is neither about the climate nor the environment, and that its real intention was made clear by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute in 2010:

Through climate policy we will de facto redistribute global wealth, one has to free himself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

Also the German professor of chemistry writes that European leaders cannot expect Trump to simply defraud his voters by not keeping his campaign promises, as controversial as some may be.

Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, says Trump’s decision is nothing to criticize, and those who do criticize either do not understand the mechanism of Paris, or have an interest in deindustrializing Germany and the bad USA.

Here we see a leader of the Socialist Party coming down hard on the Paris Accords because it is too evil for even the Socialists to hold up to a high standard. He even mentions the fact that the United States along with Germany would be deindustrialized, meaning millions of people would lose their jobs because they had no factories to work at nor fuel to go to that job. If that is not enough to make ones head explode we will show more that should have anyone reading this article pushing to have all people read it to ensure we do not fall into the GW/CC trap.

Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as practically dead because Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020. The USA’s share is 22%.

Vahrenholt also blasts the IPCC climate conference circuses of Cancun, Bali, Durban, etc..

The USA gave $55 million annually for this travelling climate circus to go to the most exotic locations of the world so that the Schellnhubers and Edenhofers of the globe could act like they were doing important things on the taxpayers’ dime.

Here, it is shown that the United States paid $55 million a year for these people to go around the world essentially begging for money so they could continue their Fake ideas on Global Warming and Climate Change both of which help fund their travels on our dime. If that does not get you mad to understand that for the last 8 years the United States gave some $440 million dollars to the elites of the IPCC so they could go around the world spreading a fear that holds no basis in real fact. In this article we have shown that the Global Warming/Climate Change ideas both have been fabricated just to enrich certain groups to continue their illusion of that to the people while in reality our world is doing just fine and will continue to do well.

Professor Vahreholt even cited another professor to show how she felt about the ideas.

 

In the last of that article, the professor states that our nation would do well to heed Prof. Judith Curry’s words and stay out of the phony Paris Accords and stay away from all the Global Warming/Climate Change lies. She states very clearly that the IPCC cannot be taken seriously since their models are wrong since the climate is not warming to the extreme levels the IPCC and United Nations, Paris Accords would lead one to believe. In other words, the very ideas of Global Warming and Climate Change should be taken with a grain of salt as in today’s world they mean nothing more than taking money for NOTHING!

DELINGPOLE: >Another< Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of 'Unprecedented' Ice

Source: DELINGPOLE: Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice

DELINGPOLE: Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice

 

A global warming research study in Canada has been cancelled because of “unprecedented” thick summer ice.

Naturally, the scientist in charge has blamed it on ‘climate change.’

According to Vice:

The study, entitled BaySys, is a $17-million four-year-long program headed by the University of Manitoba. It was planning to conduct the third leg of its research by sending 40 scientists from five Canadian universities out into the Bay on the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen to study “contributions of climate change and regulation on the Hudson Bay system.”

But it had to be cancelled because the scientists’ icebreaker was required by the Canadian Coast Guard for a rather more urgent purpose – rescuing fishing boats and supply ships which had got stuck in the “unprecedented ice conditions”.

“It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions,” Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study, told VICE. “We were finding thick multi-year sea ice floes which on level ice were five metres thick… it was much, much thicker and much, much heavier than anything you would expect at that latitude and at that time of year.”

Clearly not one to let a crisis go to waste, Barber seized the opportunity to perform the usual alarmist clown dance for the media, explaining why this incident definitely shows that global warming is a major problem and deserving of our urgent attention.

He told Vice:

“It was clear it was from the Arctic, I just needed to be among the ice to see it,” said Dr. Barber. “What was also clear to me was that climate change has caused this event to happen.”

[Don’t you just love that “I just needed to be among the ice”? I think what he’s trying in his subtle way to tell us is: “Not all superheroes wear capes”]

Warming to his theme, he told Global News:

“This is climate change fully in action – affecting our ability to make use of marine resources and transport things.”

and

“This is a wake-up call for all of us in the country.”

Of course it is. Now Barber has the perfect excuse to share his war stories with all the other global warming experts who have had their research expeditions/publicity stunts stymied by unseasonal bouts of global warming.

There was the Ship of Fools expedition in which an Australian climate researcher called Chris Turkey had to call an expedition to the melting Antarctic after his ship got stuck in the ice.

The Caitlin Expedition – supported by the Prince of Wales – in which Pen Haddow and his team had to abandon their trip to the North Pole because it was colder than they’d expected.

Most recently there was Ship of Fools II, in which a global warming research voyage by David Hempleman Adams had to be curtailed because of unexpected ice.

What on earth can Mother Gaia be trying to tell them?

Possibly the same message she’s trying to send out to the Greenies in California with this unexpected fall of white global warming.

A rare winter-like storm brought more snow to the Sierra Nevada on Monday, giving skiers the opportunity to enjoy the slopes as summer gets underway.

At Squaw Valley, the storm dropped four inches of snow at the upper elevations and two inches at the base, delighting skiers and snowboarders who will be on the slopes past the Fourth of July for a first time in history.

“It’s definitely unique,” Squaw Valley/Alpine Meadows resort spokesman Sam Kieckhefer said. “We are seeing bathing suits and costumes on the slopes. The skiing has definitely been extremely festive.”

Apparently, she didn’t get the famous memo from the Independent a few years back.

Why, if you didn’t know better you’d almost think unseasonal bouts of snow and ice were nothing to do with “global warming” but were a natural phenomenon which had been with us since time immemorial….

Charlie Daniels to Schumer: There is ‘Not One Drop of Happiness in your Life’

BY:   
May 24, 2017 4:07 pm

Charlie Daniels / Twitter

Country singer Charlie Daniels penned an open letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) saying the Senate minority leader does not have “one drop of happiness” in his life and that he has “opened Pandora’s box” by going after President Donald Trump.

Daniels, who is known for the hit song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” wrote a letter published by CNS News criticizing Schumer for having what Daniels suggested was a blind allegiance to the Democratic party.

“There’s something sinister about seeing you bent over the lectern in the Senate Chamber,” Daniels wrote. “There is not one drop of happiness in your life, forecasting a dismal future for America if anything President Trump proposes passes both houses, is signed and becomes law.”

Daniels acknowledged Schumer must have been disappointed when Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. But Daniels then said Schumer has forgotten about the working people and the empty factories, and has taken advantage of inner cities with empty promises.

The country singer castigated Schumer and the Democratic party for blaming Russia for their presidential loss.

“Instead of looking inward at the real cause for your party’s loss, you had to find a scapegoat, and if it hadn’t been Russia, it would have been something else,” Daniels wrote.

He then asked Schumer whether he honestly believed that Trump colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Will you lay your hand on a Holy Bible and tell America that you believe in your heart that Donald Trump has actually colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to the detriment of the United States of America?” Daniels asked before he guessed that Schumer’s special council would only come up with superficial answers.

Daniels wrote that Schumer has “opened Pandora’s Box and thrown away the lid,” and asked Schumer questions regarding scandals that have plagued Democrats. Daniels cited issues including Hillary Clinton signing off on allowing a Russian agency to purchase a company holding up to 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity, Clinton’s email server and former top IRS official Lois Lerner pleading the 5th and retiring with full benefits.

“You see, sir, Pandora is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and what is revealed in the coming months could well be a two-edged sword,” Daniels wrote. “Be careful what you wish for.”

VIDEO: ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ » Politichicks.com

 |  June 7, 2017

Please watch this video and see the TRUTH about the global warming SCAM!!!

 

This devastating documentary produced by Britain’s Channel 4 may not be on any American networks, but it is available here:

In this documentary, distinguished scientists and experts specializing in climate-related fields, speak and present compelling visuals revealing the truth about the entire climate change scam.

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong, Again!

By Adrian Vance

The Weather Channel, founded by John Campbell, but now under new owners, attacked a Breitbart News piece on climate change “…of cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change.” They were responding to a Breitbart article declaring global land temperatures made their “steepest fall on record last year” and were met with “…an eerie silence by scientists.”

This is not surprising to anyone who follows “man-caused global warming.” It has been the greatest cash-cow, full employment program for Ph.D.s in Physics, Chemistry, Political Science, International Relations and lastly Meteorology, the only field that should be affected as the data is clear, but academic leeches are stuck hard and fast on the carcass of “anthropogenic global warming” and they will not relent until they have bled it white.

Every physical scientist knows it is a false issue only justified by, “…more money for science…” and they are not kidding. It has netted  $1 trillion and that does not include many millions for new textbooks in areas that will have to be replaced when the fraud is exposed.  The publishers know:  They all have physical scientist consultants who have told them the truth if they wanted to hear it.  According to Breitbart, “The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare” and we second that with a demo-experiment you can do in your home for less than $10 and we could teach this at a high school. You can do it at home. See: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

endthelieIn response to Breitbart, The Weather Channel said climate change was real and Breitbart was lying which is interesting as they fired Dr. Heidi Cullen when she was caught in a “global warmng” lie saying, “Methane is a greenhouse gas 500 times more potent than CO2,” when it does not absorb IR much more than nitrogen which is classified as “transparent” to infrared radiation, IR, heat energy and there are actually no “greenhouse gases.”

”Science doesn’t care about your opinion,” Weather Channel Meteorologist Kait Parker said of Breitbart” adding,  “It will not change the future nor the fact that the Earth is warming.”  The Weather Channel then launched a scathing attack on Breitbart, accusing them of  “…cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change,” when this is clearly what NASA, NOAA and now the Weather Channel have been caught doing.

The Brietbart piece was entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.”  It noted global land temperatures had dropped one Celsius degree in the last year but the news “…had been ignored by the alarmist community.”

This is a monumental change given the size and mass of gases in the atmosphere as it represents a huge change in the energy we receive from the sun.  It should not be surprising as the sun has been quiet for the last decade showing few sunspots.  They are like bubbles in boiling water showing more energy is entering the pot that normal evaporation can abibe so bubbles form explosively.  Black sunspots are solar bubbles.

Evidence of solar cooling includes earlier fall migrations of ducks and geese from Canada.  In northern California where ten years ago they were not seen until late October and early November some are flying over in late August with the greatest number now coming south in September.

While the Weather Channel does not typically offer opinion beyond weather and climate science, “…in this case we felt it important to add our two cents,” wrote they in a post on its’ website Tuesday.

Meteorologist Kait Parker denied the Breitbart, and other climate change skeptics, claims global temperatures are decreasing, and proceeded to pick apart the article piece by piece.

Addressing the claim global land temperatures had their “biggest and steepest fall on record,” the meteorologist pointed out, “this trend was based on just one satellite estimate,” when the Earth is 71% covered water is misleading.

The weather experts also disputed Breitbart’s claim that any recent warming was simply the result of El Niño which is now thought to be driven by very deep water volcanoes in the Indian Ocean, the deepest of all Earth’s seas.

El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015,’ Parker said. “However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest.”  This statement is in error as the warmest year on record was 1934.

The Weather Channel said thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that “greenhouse gases” produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and “will keep doing so,” when there are no “greenhouse gases” as they would have to form a solid, transparent, glass-like shield to make Earth a “greenhouse” and no gas can form a solid, transparent or opaque.icyalgore

Climate change “experts” for the channel, Bob Henson and Jeff Masters, warn that “artificial debates” over climate change were “a distraction from the important discussions which should be taking place.”  What could be more important then whether or not the issue is false?  Nonetheless they contend:

“Scientific debate in this area is real and perfectly legitimate. Likewise, how we respond to climate change is a matter of public policy, one that demands healthy debate and engagement from citizens and political leaders.”  “Engagement from?”  Is this an error in grammar or an outing of intention?

“It’s something else entirely to foster suspicion about the very bedrock of climate change science, which is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and accepted by every major scientific organization on Earth.”  Those “peer reviewed” journals are all garage and basement printed, low circulation pamphlets with “peers” who are associates often on the same faculties as the authors who take turns being “peer reviewers.”

“Human-produced greenhouse gases are causing the Earth system to warm, and this trend will continue, along with shorter-term ups and downs. There are too many important debates and decisions ahead of us to waste time on artificial ones.”  Again the error expands as the primary “greenhouse gas,” CO2 actually causes a decline in atmospheric temperature as you can see in the demo-experiment at: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

The Weather Channel ended its piece, by offering to help Breitbart next time they needed to fact check an article noting, “I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong. A third of the world’s polar bears ‘will disappear in the next 40 years because of melting sea ice.”

We note that a recent Polar Bear census has noted there are more then ever, but this may be due to better counting than we have had in the past noting natural history, mistakenly called “science,” is open to question and notorious for rubber “facts.”

Source: The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

global_warming_hoax

Pew Research: Americans Don’t Believe There’s A ‘97% Consensus of Climate Scientists

The study which concluded there’s 97% consensus of climate scientists believing the man-made global warming hypothesis is simply bogus. It’s laden with faulty research.Thankfully the American Public isn’t buying the 97% nonsense, according to a Pew study released earlier this week .

Any objective examination of the methodology of the study will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. But sadly the present federal government, as well as liberals all across this nation believe the study and do not allow any discussion despite the fact that global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.

Just 27% of Americans say that almost all climate scientists agree human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change. This perception is at odds with a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which accessed more than 9,000 scientific publications and concluded: ‘The science now shows with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Apparently Americans aren’t as stupid as climate scare-mongers, progressives, and Democratic Party politicians think we are.

The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”  by John Cook and friends, published in 2013 by the University of Queensland was .

According to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried the study would be exposed they threatened a lawsuit over any use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal. That threat is antithetical to the scientific method, which says that, for a study to be valid, it must be possible to repeat it and achieve the same results as the initial study. But, the University of Queensland was hiding that Cook’s study was a qualitative study which relied on opinion and produced biased results.

Cook and his buddies looked at peer-reviewed studies and subjectively classified them as either agreeing or disagreeing with the climate change hypothesis. Based on the methodology the 97% figure was really 97% of the hand-picked studies they reviewed and they decided supported the hypothesis.

When investigative journalists at Popular Technology  looked into the 97% study, they found it falsely classified some of the scientists’ papers as supporting the global warming hypothesis. Instead of arriving at their own opinions the Popular Technology report relied on the opinions of scientists conducted the research and wrote the papers.

Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, aggressive climate change skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the “consensus” position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded:

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is not only less than 97% but it is less than 0.97%.

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

Another criticism of the Cook’s paper is it didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. Is the 97% for people who believe the global warming is real, or people who believe it’s real and caused by mankind?

There are scientists, for example, who believe the Earth just went through a warming period caused by high sunspot activity. Many of those scientists blaming sunspots either work or consult for the U.S. or British Governments. Those scientists believe that we have entered a period of low sunspot activity and that might cause a mini-ice age.

Princeton physicist William Happer in explained in Climate Depot, “if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago.” Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man’s carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense. “All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player” in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. “We’ve had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That’s not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen.”

The bottom line is that any objective examination of the methodology used by Cook and the University of Queensland will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. And despite the fact that politicians and liberals are trying to shove the consensus down our throats, according to Pew Research, Americans aren’t buying it either.