Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the Chesapeake Bay Area? – Calvin Beisner

Calvin Beisner
|
Posted: Aug 26, 2017 12:01 AM
 
 
Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the Chesapeake Bay Area?
One way for environmentalists, who tend to be on the political Left, to curry favor with conservatives is to try to tie their concerns to national defense, or “military readiness.” That’s certainly become a major theme of warnings about global warming-driven sea-level rise of late.

Tying global warming, sea-level rise, and national defense together stretches back a number of years, but it seems to have become more common recently. Here are just a few examples.

On September 3 of last year, the New York Times published perennial climate alarmist Justin Gillis’s “Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun,” in which Gillis wrote:

As the problem worsens, experts are warning that national security is on the line. Naval bases, in particular, are threatened; they can hardly be moved away from the ocean, yet much of their land is at risk of disappearing within this century.

“It’s as if the country was being attacked along every border, simultaneously,” said Andrea Dutton, a climate scientist at the University of Florida and one of the world’s leading experts on rising seas. “It’s a slow, gradual attack, but it threatens the safety and security of the United States.”

 

On February 7, National Geographic ran a story titled “Who’s Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military.” It claimed:

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

On March 31 National Public Radio ran a program titled “Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases.” It began this way:

 

[HOST DAVID GREENE:] And we’re going to look now at one line – one line – in President Trump’s executive order on the environment. It’s a line that did not get much attention. In it, President Trump revoked President Obama’s directive that federal departments including the Pentagon should treat climate change as a national security threat. For the Navy, one of those threats is the sea itself. Reporter Jay Price of member station WUNC visited a spot in Norfolk, Va., where sea level rise is measured.

JAY PRICE, BYLINE: We’re on a pier at the world’s largest Navy base. Navy destroyers behind us, and in front, a white cabinet not much bigger than a refrigerator.

DEAN VANDERLEY: It’s called the Sewell’s Point tidal gauge.

PRICE: Captain Dean VanderLey heads engineering for Navy infrastructure along much of the East Coast.

VANDELEY: Not really much to look at, but it’s operated by NOAA.

PRICE: That’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

VANDELEY: And they’ve had a tidal gauge out here since 1927. So, you know, I think when it comes to monitoring the sea level on the East Coast, this is, you know, one of the places that they’ve got the most data.

 

PRICE: And that data shows that the water has risen almost 15 inches here in Hampton Roads in under a hundred years. That’s the most on the East Coast. Flooding already is so routine that giant rulers have been erected along city roads outside the base to show where the water is too deep for a car to drive through. And in little more than two decades, the main road into the base could be flooding almost daily at high tide.

On June 14, Forbes.com published “Actual Scientists Say Sea Level Rise is a Threat to Tangier Island, Virginia,” including this dark paragraph:

Cities throughout coastal Virginia have started to plan for regional challenges associated with flooding and storm surge. Mohammad Shar told a Daily Press reporter, “We are brainstorming to see what’s going on as far as sea level rise and trying to manage it as a region.” A recent NOAA report discussed the increase in “sunny-day” or “nuisance flooding” associated with high tides. Virginia Beach and Norfolk are homes to significant U.S. Navy assets and they have long been concerned about sea-level changes because many of their installations and infrastructure are at or below sea level. The Navy Times reported in 2016 that new reports suggested that three feet of sea level rise could threaten 128 military based (valued at $100 billion). While the President dismissed the threat of sea level rise, my ”bottom line feeling” is that the military does not plan for hoaxes because there is too much at stake.

 

The Washington Post on July 14 published “National Study puts timeline on impact of sea-level rise in Maryland, Virginia,” which also specifically mentioned Norfolk.

All of that sounds pretty alarming (and it’s supposed to). But people with more than a passing interest in the study of sea-level rise will, if they’re paying attention, recognize immediately that all of it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Tide gauges don’t measure “sea level.” They measure the level of the sea relative to a particular piece of coastline. One way to distinguish the two is by referring to the former as “global sea level” and the latter as “local sea level.” But remember, in the latter case what’s really being measured is the local sea level relative to the local coastline.

Norfolk lies on the Virginia coast at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay. Tide gauges along the bay have certainly shown a change in sea level relative to the surrounding land. But is that happening because sea level itself is rising?

The answer might seem obvious: “Well of course it’s because sea level is rising! The land’s stable, after all.”

But what seems obvious is also wrong. The land along the Chesapeake Bay, including at Norfolk, is anything but stable.

As Dr. Roger Bezdek, an economist with over 30 years’ experience in the energy, utility, environmental, and regulatory areas, points out in “Water Intrusion in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Is It Caused by Climate-Induced Sea Level Rise?“ in the Open Access journal Scientific Research:

Land subsidence has been known and observed in the southern Chesapeake Bay region for many decades and is a factor that must be considered by urban planners and natural resource managers. Land subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay region was first documented over four decades ago by Holdahl and Morrison who reported results of geodetic surveys completed between 1940 and 1971 and found land surfaces across the region were sinking at an average rate of 2.8 mm/yr. with rates ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 mm/yr. … The National Geodetic Survey has computed velocities for three of these stations between 2006 and 2011 and found an average subsidence rate of 3.1 mm/yr.

In other words, the changing relative heights of the land and the sea in the Chesapeake Bay area are driven by something on the order of 3 to 5 mm/year of land subsidence. And what causes the land subsidence? Glacial isostatic adjustment (the slow and very-long-term response of the earth’s crust to loading and unloading due to erosion, deposition, saturation, drying, glaciation, and deglaciation), at about 1 mm/year, and most of the rest, 2 to 4 mm/year, from groundwater extraction.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the rate of global sea-level rise as something in around 3 mm/year. That implies that the 3 to 5 mm/year of land subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay area is equal to, or up to 2/3 faster than, global sea level rise.

But the IPCC’s estimate of global sea level rise is itself likely too high. As I noted elsewhere, one of the world’s foremost experts on sea level, Nils-Axel Mörner recently presented extensive empirical data from tide gauges around the world that show a long-term rate of global sea-level rise of ”between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr.” That, coupled with the National Geodetic Survey’s estimate of the area’s land-subsidence rate between 2006 and 2011 of 3.1 mm/year, would imply that of the roughly 3.8 mm/year of local sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay area (calculated from the 15 inches reported as having occurred over roughly the last 100 years), at least 4/5, and perhaps all of it, can be attributed to land subsidence rather than global sea-level rise.

In short, at least at Norfolk, it’s not global sea-level rise that threatens trouble to a naval installation. It’s local land subsidence. And that means that fighting global warming will have no impact on the problem.

Don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t mean relative sea-level rise can’t be a problem for any naval installations. It can be. But the solution isn’t likely to be fighting global warming. It’s more likely a combination of raising the buildings and piers and finding ways to slow groundwater extraction to reduce its contribution to land subsidence, both of which are much simpler and cheaper than trying to control the average temperature of the whole globe by depriving billions of people of the abundant, affordable, reliable fossil-fuel energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty.

Advertisements

Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia – Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen
Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia
 Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people twelve years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm. 

Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!

Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.

The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.

With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.

 

Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.

But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.

First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries or cement kilns, manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.

Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.

 

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized and de-developed.

Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.

Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.

 

Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.

The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.

That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time. 

More good news: Polluting, gas-guzzling, climate-changing cars and light trucks will be a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll have horses, oxen, donkeys, buggies and wagons again … grow millions of acres of hay to feed them – and have to dispose of millions or billions of tons of manure and urine every year.

There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with pre-industrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.

Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.

As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.

But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.

Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies and private armies).

So how about this as a better option?

Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.

Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.

Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.

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:

Moore Responds To McConnell: ‘I’m Not Difficult To Manage; It’s Impossible For Him To Manage Me’

“The hopelessness is over.”

Judge Roy Moore responded Tuesday night to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s apparent concern that the conservative firebrand would be “difficult to manage” if he were elected to be Alabama’s next U.S. senator in the upcoming special election.

In a campaign appearance before the Coffee County Republican Club in southern Alabama, the former chief justice was asked about a CNN article saying McConnell does not want to add a “conservative rebel in a GOP conference already difficult to manage.” The comment was certainly a reference to Moore, who is leading in the race, according to the most recent polling.

“Now, I just want to make Mitchell McConnell to know,” the judge said in response, “I’m not difficult to manage. It’s impossible for him to manage me.”

Among the issues Moore differs with McConnell on is the Senate health care plan currently under consideration.

“We need to repeal Obamacare,” Moore said. “We don’t need replacement. This is socialized medicine. It did not work in Europe it won’t work here. Find it in the Constitution where the federal government is responsible for health care. It is not there.”

The West Point graduate and Vietnam War veteran wondered how people can expect the federal government to oversee a national health care system when it struggles to manage the Veterans Affairs hospital system, according to the Dothan Eagle.

Moore further accused establishment Republicans of not honoring their campaign promises by not seeking to fully repeal Obamacare. “They ran on one thing and are doing another,” he said.

McConnell’s pick in the race is Sen. Luther Strange, who was appointed to the open Senate seat in February by disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley.

Despite being appointed to the position, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which does McConnell’s bidding, said it will treat Strange as an incumbent and put its full weight behind helping the appointee prevail against Moore and the other GOP candidates in the Aug. 15 primary.

The NRSC’s super PAC plans to spend $2.6 million in air time for Strange and has threatened any campaign vendors who help Moore or any other contender with being cut out from NRSC funding during the 2018 election cycle.

“We have made it very clear from the beginning that Sen. Luther Strange would be treated as an incumbent,” NRCS communications director Katie Martin told Politico. “It has also been a clear policy that we will not use vendors who work against our incumbents.”

Moore’s campaign chair — former state senator and state Republican Party chairman Bill Armistead — is up for the challenge.

“The establishment candidates have the money. We have the people, and our grassroots warriors are looking forward to beating the heck out of Washington and making Judge Roy Moore our voice in the U.S. Senate,” Armistead said.

Moore took on and defeated the Republican establishment candidates in both 2000 and 2012 to become Alabama’s chief justice. He won the primary races with more than 50 percent of the vote in both instances, negating the need for a runoff.

Alabama political observers, including columnists Steve Flowers and Quin Hillyer, see this year’s contest as one that will likely be a two-man race between Moore and Strange, despite a total of seven candidates vying for the nomination, including Congressman Mo Brooks.

Internal polling released by the Brooks’ campaign last month showed Moore in the lead with 31 percent, followed by Strange at 23 percent and Brooks at 21 percent.

Hillyer believes Moore’s chances of winning in the August primary are very good, particularly given that special elections generally have lower voter turnout.

“Someone with an avid following and an established organization like Moore will get his vote out when others won’t,” the Mobile resident said.

If no candidate garners over 50 percent of the vote on August 15, there will be a run off between the top two on Sept. 26, followed by the general election on Dec. 12.

The winner of the Republican primary is highly favored to prevail in December in the deep red state.

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!

If The Left Wins Their Soft Coup, Everyone Loses – But Mostly Them – Kurt Schlichter

You have to wonder how liberals think this works. So, a manifestly conflicted special counsel leading a pack of maxed-out Democrat donors decides Donald Trump has to be kicked out of office for “obstructing justice” regarding a cynical lie about him cavorting with the Kremlin and…then what? President Pence, until they do the same thing to him? Or do we just skip right to President Felonia von Pantsuit, shrug our shoulders, and give up on our foolish dream of having a say in our own governance?

Straightforward from here is…chaos.

Because normal Americans are woke to the scam. No, the affidavits of a zillion DC/NY establishment types attesting to Robert Mueller’s impeccable integrity – ever notice how the guy trying to hose us always has the establishment’s “impeccable integrity” merit badge – are not going to make us unsee the fact that he’s carrying water for an establishment that thinks we need to just shut up and obey.

Now, pulling off the soft coup is going to be harder than they think. The establishment has not thought this out. They sort of assume that if they squelch Trump then everything somehow just goes back to them being in unchallenged control. Wrong.

Mueller can’t indict Trump – that stupid Constitution, always getting in the way! No, the goal is for Mueller and his crack team of committed liberal activist lawyers to generate some head-shaking, tsk-tsk, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, report claiming Trump “obstructed” the probe into Hillary’s Trump/Russia collusion lie that even the liberals reluctantly acknowledge never happened.

But their problem is that impeachment is a purely political act – this isn’t going to get tried before some leftist DC judge and a 96% Democrat DC jury. No, they have to convince the Republican members of the House of Representatives to impeach and, well, have you taken a look at a political map of the US lately? It’s as red as a baseball field full of conservatives after a Bernie Bro shows up with a rifle.

Now, in the circle of jerks that is DC, congressmen are bombarded with the Trump obstruction narrative. Many neutered professional conservatives, eager to return to the old status quo where they sort-of mattered, are helping our enemies. Some of these congressmen are themselves Fredocons, weak and stupid, and are listening. Some might be swayed – except in a couple weeks they have to go home and be around normal people, and they’re going to hear something completely different.

Normal people aren’t falling for it.

Has anyone out there actually met a Trump voter who said something like this?

I supported Trump, but now I don’t because his refusal to passively sit back and let a Washington insider with an obvious conflict of interest and his Democrat staff drive him out of office on the basis of a Hillary-driven lie far outweighs Neil Gorsuch, pulling out of the climate scam, beating ISIS, and repealing Obamacare.

 Yeah, no. Not a thing.

Even I, trapped behind enemy lines in deep blue California, have yet to hear anyone talking about this transparent coup, much less actually saying, “Yeah, we have to climb up on the Democrats’ altar and commit ritual suicide to please them.”

Congressmen fear their voters, and their voters – not the bused-in corps of aspiring baseball diamond shooters Soros cash pays to show up at townhalls to complain that they might have to pay for their own doctor like you and I do – are not going to accept this. No matter what Mueller’s report says, Trump is not getting impeached. Oh, and please, Democrats, make 2018 about impeachment. We yearn for the chance to yet again demonstrate to you that America is not MSNBC.

Now, that’s assuming Trump doesn’t fire Mueller, something he has every right to do under the Constitution – and should do based on this hack’s obvious corruption. The furor the media has threatened would follow in order to keep Trump from doing so will turn out to be yet another nothingburger. But if Trump doesn’t can him, Mueller and his team of committed Never Trumpers will claim the President obstructed “justice” for not hanging his head in shame over the Democrat lies. And that will go nowhere. Trump will never be impeached. And Trump will pardon any of his associates Mueller and his pack of cynical leakers tries to indict on whatever puffed-up, bogus charges they invent in order to justify this exercise in investigatory onanism.

 

And we should hope that’s how it ends.

Because what happens if the voice of half of America is effectively silenced by the DC swamp and its media guardians? The Tea Party was the first manifestation of the anger out there at the establishment. It was polite – it even cleaned up its own messes after its peaceful protests. The media, and the same alleged conservatives who saw the Tea Party as a threat to their own position because it caused donors to start asking for results instead of simply writing checks, attacked the Tea Party. Well, then we got Trump, who was not nearly as polite, and who took the White House fair and square from the designated establishment candidate. And now they want to use non-ballot means to make sure the normals’ choice is again ignored.

What do they think comes after Trump? Someone nice?

Do they think we stop demanding we be heard? Do they think we give up on participating in governing the country that we normals built, that we normals paid for, and that we normals fought for?

 

Oh well, we should have known not to get all uppity and try to have a say in our own country. Let’s let our betters rule us. Let’s obey.

No, that’s not going to happen. If liberals like chaos and even violence – and their *wink wink* denunciations of their own creature’s attempted conservative murder spree and their squealing delight in a high-profile play where the President is butchered onstage show they think they do – then the way to get chaos and violence is for them to succeed in their campaign of fascist, anti-democratic scheming against the guy who beat the harpy they nominated.

If you want real political chaos and real political violence, then just keep going down this path. You can’t light the fuse and not get the explosion. I saw what happens when you toss away the rule of lawdon’t do it.

The hatred out there is real and growing. This is not a good thing – it’s a terrible thing. People are buying my novels about the country splitting apart and the horrifying specter of actual civil warfare (Hint: it’s ugly) because that’s where the establishment’s desperate schemes to hold onto power despite the will of the people, as manifested at the ballot box, all lead.

And the left is not ready for what its stupidity and greed could unleash. The establishment hacks think they can undermine the foundations of this country and not have it collapse on top of them. What progressives forget is that the rules, norms, and customs they ignore are not there to protect the normals, but to protect the weak and vulnerable elites who can’t go to their gun safe and choose from a half-dozen long weapons when things get real.

Here’s how this goes: If you end the rule of law, you begin the rule of power, and the rule of power means the folks with the most guns rule. Do they think the predominantly red state soldiers of our military are going to murder other Americans and risk their own lives to secure the unearned power of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling liberals and their fakecon lackeys?

If they knew any soldiers, they would know the answer.

Before it’s too late and before you’ve done damage that can’t be undone, give up this dream of some extra-constitutional dues ex Mueller to overturn the election you lost. Turn away from this insanity before it’s too late, because straightforward from here is chaos.

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….