THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 21, 2019 at 7:52 pm
Paul Plante says :
And your statement “(O)ne may choose to address a child as an adult, but it is silly to believe they will comprehend the intricacies of the history of all of mankind, with the mixing of all of our policies with regards to the resources of this planet, and how we conduct ourselves, in order to survive and progress as a species,” actually goes to the heart of this matter from the perspective of an American citizen concerned about due process of law here, because on September 18, 2019, the Democrats in OUR United States House of Representatives chose to treat this 16-year old girl from Sweden not only as an adult, but further, as an expert witness and climate expert, as we can see from this blog entry from the Union of Concerned Scientists blog site entitled “I’m a Scientist and Greta Thunberg’s Speech to Congress Inspires Me” by Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist on September 20, 2019, as follows:
I was honored to meet Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old climate activist who started weekly climate strikes and the hashtag #FridaysForFuture, which have in turn inspired many young people to strike in their hometowns.
Moments before Greta’s powerful speech to members of Congress on September 18, 2019 in the largest room on Capitol Hill, the Ways and Means Committee room, she was preparing in a small room.
end quotes
The “powerful” speech of course was little Greta saying: “I’m instead attaching my testimony – it is the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8th 2018.”
end quotes
And what was “powerful” about that speech was the sheer ease with which little Greta was able to slip that collection of political horse**** known as the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8th 2018, to OUR Congress with no questions whatsoever being raised as to why OUR Congress should be accepting that contrived document as “science” upon which to base OUR future public policy.
Now, the way these things should work in a true democracy is that Greta would submit her written testimony, which she has clearly done in the form of this IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8th 2018, which is not “science,” and then WE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE would have an opportunity to have our experts review that testimony word for word and line by line, and the question the witness, in this case, little Greta, who should be treated as an adult and held to the same standards as any other witness testifying to Congress, especially these days as we hear about all these Republicans being convicted of lying to Congress.
But in this case, by design, we are being denied that opportunity to question this load of horse**** called the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8th 2018, which little Greta dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019, which is not only un-democratic, but un-American, as well.
Thus, we Americans concerned about OUR future as a nation owe a continuing debt of gratitude to the Cape Charles Mirror, which is the only venue I have found where a common citizen without political clout like myself can stand up and say, “wait a minute here, and quit trying to jam this un-scientific horse**** down our throats just because little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg told you to!”
As to the un-scientific horse**** little Greta successfully slipped to the Democrats in OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 without a word of question being uttered, let’s start the review with Chapter 1, Executive Summary, as follows:
Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence).
end quotes
Now, given the actual history of climate on this planet going back over the last several thousand years, that sentence, which was written by lawyers, not scientists, that sentence is horse****, because it actually is cooler now than it was during “pre-industrial” levels, when CO2 was lower, and temperatures were higher than they are now, which takes us then to this statement which shows us how these lawyers weasel their way around that reality, to wit:
Unless otherwise specified, warming is expressed relative to the period 1850–1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5.
end quotes
HOG**** science, people – that is what little Greta is peddling here.
The question is why are the Democrats in Congress buying it?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-199386
Just musings, is all
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 23, 2019 at 6:44 pm
Paul Plante says :
Now that I am done roaring with laughter, twice I have seen the live full face shot of this zealot Adam Schiff during these inquisitorial hearings of his where all manner of salacious, behind-the-scenes gossip is coming out as to what life in the very catty diplomatic service of the United States of America is really like, and what a pitiful crowd the lot of them are, a bunch of petty back-biters enjoying their moment on international TV as stars of the ADAM SHOW where they get to sling all kinds of **** about what they don’t like about Trump, and what somebody thought they heard somebody telling somebody else about what that person thought they overheard while evesdropping on their boss, as it is known out here in the wilds of America north of Cape Charles, and truly, it was like looking into the face and eyes of a religious zealot like Jim Jones or that Branch Davidian dude, or perhaps a Tomás de Torquemada with a Holy Office for the Propagation of the Democrat Faith, where Adam’s whole body was craning forward towards the camera while his eyes with a lot of white showing were bugging right out of the dude’s head like that dude in the Jim Carey movie whose eyes could pop right out of his head.
Not much scares me, I would say, but looking that zealot in the face like, even with the glass of the TV screen between us, with his eyes bugging out at me that literally scared the crap right out of me, I’m telling you, and that’s a fact!
And in his closing words, our little zealot Adam, who is rapidly gaining the agnomen of “THE PURIFIER” out here in the countryside, anyway, and who was quite emotional at the time as he was firmly caught in the grip of his religious fervor, invoked the hallowed words of Elijah “The Prophet” Cummings, who is now considered to be a Deity by Democrats in the manner of Caesar Augustus after his earthly passing, and said first, “there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law,” and then, “WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!”
Except you’re not, little Adam!
And yes, Adam, there is something far more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law, and that is an unethical Congressman like yourself who believes that you are above the law.
You, Adam Schiff, are a far bigger danger to our Constitution and American way of life than is Donald Trump, who had every right as OUR president to suspend that military aid to what is a corrupt ***hole.
So, yes, Mr. Otton, the appellation of Robespierre fits Adam Schiff very well in my mind, as he is literally out to destroy Trump and erase his name from the face of the earth, and there is no low he won’t stoop to, to get there.
He makes “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy look like an all-around good guy by comparison.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-200069
Paul Plante says :
Now that I am done roaring with laughter, twice I have seen the live full face shot of this zealot Adam Schiff during these inquisitorial hearings of his where all manner of salacious, behind-the-scenes gossip is coming out as to what life in the very catty diplomatic service of the United States of America is really like, and what a pitiful crowd the lot of them are, a bunch of petty back-biters enjoying their moment on international TV as stars of the ADAM SHOW where they get to sling all kinds of **** about what they don’t like about Trump, and what somebody thought they heard somebody telling somebody else about what that person thought they overheard while evesdropping on their boss, as it is known out here in the wilds of America north of Cape Charles, and truly, it was like looking into the face and eyes of a religious zealot like Jim Jones or that Branch Davidian dude, or perhaps a Tomás de Torquemada with a Holy Office for the Propagation of the Democrat Faith, where Adam’s whole body was craning forward towards the camera while his eyes with a lot of white showing were bugging right out of the dude’s head like that dude in the Jim Carey movie whose eyes could pop right out of his head.
Not much scares me, I would say, but looking that zealot in the face like, even with the glass of the TV screen between us, with his eyes bugging out at me that literally scared the crap right out of me, I’m telling you, and that’s a fact!
And in his closing words, our little zealot Adam, who is rapidly gaining the agnomen of “THE PURIFIER” out here in the countryside, anyway, and who was quite emotional at the time as he was firmly caught in the grip of his religious fervor, invoked the hallowed words of Elijah “The Prophet” Cummings, who is now considered to be a Deity by Democrats in the manner of Caesar Augustus after his earthly passing, and said first, “there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law,” and then, “WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!”
Except you’re not, little Adam!
And yes, Adam, there is something far more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law, and that is an unethical Congressman like yourself who believes that you are above the law.
You, Adam Schiff, are a far bigger danger to our Constitution and American way of life than is Donald Trump, who had every right as OUR president to suspend that military aid to what is a corrupt ***hole.
So, yes, Mr. Otton, the appellation of Robespierre fits Adam Schiff very well in my mind, as he is literally out to destroy Trump and erase his name from the face of the earth, and there is no low he won’t stoop to, to get there.
He makes “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy look like an all-around good guy by comparison.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-200069
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 17, 2019 at 7:53 pm
Paul Plante says :
Getting back to this statement by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria that “(T)he President’s decision to begin formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement puts our military readiness at risk,” how can that possibly be, people?
What possible relationship does NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria see that in any way links our military readiness with the so-called Paris Agreement, which is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme?
How could there possibly be any type of linkage between our military readiness and the so-called Paris Agreement, given that the Paris Agreement is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme which would weaken us as a nation, not strengthen us in any way?
What game is NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria playing at here, people, and why?
That the Paris Agreement being pushed above here by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is little more than a SCAM can readily be seen as follows from p.10 of a book entitled “Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis” by Jonathan Symons, copyright 2019, as follows:
Social psychology also tells us that people are generally much more likely to acknowledge the existence of a threat if they believe others have caused it.
Consider the 2015 Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting warming 1.5°C.
This goal was always a fantasy whose adoption suggests a collective desire to avoid difficult truths.
Even if all emissions ceased today, warming might eventually exceed 1.5°C (Hansen et al. 2008).
The more ambitious 2°C now also looks practically unfeasible.
Full implementation of the Paris Agreement pledges would bridge only about twenty-two percent of the gap between our current emissions trajectory and a pathway consistent with limiting this century’s warming to 2°C (UNFCCC 2015b, p. 44).
At the time of writing, no major developed economy is on track to meet even these feeble pledges Victor et al. 2017).
end quotes
That house-of-cards farce is what NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria wants us to base our military readiness on in this country.
WHY?
Why are we being asked by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria to base our military readiness on a SCAM?
As to Hampton Roads, itself, has the Navy become so incompetent these days that it no longer realizes how fragile and unprotected from the ocean Hampton Roads really is?
And how can the Navy be so stupid when they, like all the rest of us, have access to THE HURRICANE HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN VIRGINIA, where we are informed as follows:
Continuous weather records for the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia began on January 1, 1871 when the National Weather Service was established in downtown Norfolk.
The recorded history of significant tropical storms that affected the area goes back much further.
Prior to 1871, very early storms have been located in ship logs, newspaper accounts, history books, and countless other writings.
The residents of coastal Virginia during Colonial times were very much aware of the weather.
They were a people that lived near the water and largely derived their livelihood from the sea.
To them, a tropical storm was indeed a noteworthy event.
The excellent records left by some of Virginia’s early settlers and from official records of the National Weather Service are summarized below.
Learning from the past will help us prepare for the future.
end quotes
Except if you are the U.S. Navy of today, apparently, if we are to believe a word NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is telling us, which takes us to that history she and the Navy are apparently unaware of, as follows:
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
1635 August 24 – First historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the VA coast.
1667 September 6 – It appears likely this hurricane caused the widening of the Lynnhaven River.
The Bay rose 12 feet above normal and many people had to flee.
1693 October 29 – From the Royal Society of London, There happened a most violent storm in VA which stopped the course of ancient channels and made some where there never were any.
1749 October 19 – Tremendous hurricane. A sand spit of 800 acres was washed up and with the help of a hurricane in 1806 it became Willoughby Spit.
The Bay rose 15 feet above normal.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
1806 August 23 – Called the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806.
1821 September 3 – The Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane.
One of the most violent hurricanes on record.
Ships in Norfolk were washed ashore by winds, waves, and storm surge.
Storm surge estimated to be around 10 feet in some areas.
1878 October 23 – Cobb and Smith Islands, on the Eastern Shore, were completely submerged.
1879 August 18 – Tide in Norfolk 7.77 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 76 mph with 100 mph estimated gusts.
1887 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 78 mph.
The storm caused a record number of marine disasters.
1897 October 25 – Lasted 60 hours. Norfolk tides 8.1 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
1899 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry 72 mph. Tide in Norfolk reached 8.9 feet above MLLW.
end quotes
So how come NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is surprised by any of this when it is high school level history readily available to anyone in this country including NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria?
And what does she think this Paris Agreement crowd is going to do to put an end to that violence the ocean and nature like to inflict on the Hampton Roads area of Virginia?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... te-accord/
Paul Plante says :
Getting back to this statement by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria that “(T)he President’s decision to begin formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement puts our military readiness at risk,” how can that possibly be, people?
What possible relationship does NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria see that in any way links our military readiness with the so-called Paris Agreement, which is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme?
How could there possibly be any type of linkage between our military readiness and the so-called Paris Agreement, given that the Paris Agreement is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme which would weaken us as a nation, not strengthen us in any way?
What game is NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria playing at here, people, and why?
That the Paris Agreement being pushed above here by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is little more than a SCAM can readily be seen as follows from p.10 of a book entitled “Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis” by Jonathan Symons, copyright 2019, as follows:
Social psychology also tells us that people are generally much more likely to acknowledge the existence of a threat if they believe others have caused it.
Consider the 2015 Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting warming 1.5°C.
This goal was always a fantasy whose adoption suggests a collective desire to avoid difficult truths.
Even if all emissions ceased today, warming might eventually exceed 1.5°C (Hansen et al. 2008).
The more ambitious 2°C now also looks practically unfeasible.
Full implementation of the Paris Agreement pledges would bridge only about twenty-two percent of the gap between our current emissions trajectory and a pathway consistent with limiting this century’s warming to 2°C (UNFCCC 2015b, p. 44).
At the time of writing, no major developed economy is on track to meet even these feeble pledges Victor et al. 2017).
end quotes
That house-of-cards farce is what NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria wants us to base our military readiness on in this country.
WHY?
Why are we being asked by NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria to base our military readiness on a SCAM?
As to Hampton Roads, itself, has the Navy become so incompetent these days that it no longer realizes how fragile and unprotected from the ocean Hampton Roads really is?
And how can the Navy be so stupid when they, like all the rest of us, have access to THE HURRICANE HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN VIRGINIA, where we are informed as follows:
Continuous weather records for the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia began on January 1, 1871 when the National Weather Service was established in downtown Norfolk.
The recorded history of significant tropical storms that affected the area goes back much further.
Prior to 1871, very early storms have been located in ship logs, newspaper accounts, history books, and countless other writings.
The residents of coastal Virginia during Colonial times were very much aware of the weather.
They were a people that lived near the water and largely derived their livelihood from the sea.
To them, a tropical storm was indeed a noteworthy event.
The excellent records left by some of Virginia’s early settlers and from official records of the National Weather Service are summarized below.
Learning from the past will help us prepare for the future.
end quotes
Except if you are the U.S. Navy of today, apparently, if we are to believe a word NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is telling us, which takes us to that history she and the Navy are apparently unaware of, as follows:
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
1635 August 24 – First historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the VA coast.
1667 September 6 – It appears likely this hurricane caused the widening of the Lynnhaven River.
The Bay rose 12 feet above normal and many people had to flee.
1693 October 29 – From the Royal Society of London, There happened a most violent storm in VA which stopped the course of ancient channels and made some where there never were any.
1749 October 19 – Tremendous hurricane. A sand spit of 800 acres was washed up and with the help of a hurricane in 1806 it became Willoughby Spit.
The Bay rose 15 feet above normal.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
1806 August 23 – Called the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806.
1821 September 3 – The Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane.
One of the most violent hurricanes on record.
Ships in Norfolk were washed ashore by winds, waves, and storm surge.
Storm surge estimated to be around 10 feet in some areas.
1878 October 23 – Cobb and Smith Islands, on the Eastern Shore, were completely submerged.
1879 August 18 – Tide in Norfolk 7.77 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 76 mph with 100 mph estimated gusts.
1887 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 78 mph.
The storm caused a record number of marine disasters.
1897 October 25 – Lasted 60 hours. Norfolk tides 8.1 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
1899 October 31 – Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry 72 mph. Tide in Norfolk reached 8.9 feet above MLLW.
end quotes
So how come NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria is surprised by any of this when it is high school level history readily available to anyone in this country including NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Luria?
And what does she think this Paris Agreement crowd is going to do to put an end to that violence the ocean and nature like to inflict on the Hampton Roads area of Virginia?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... te-accord/
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 23, 2019 at 8:08 pm
Paul Plante says :
Staying with what is becoming known as the “GREAT GRETA CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM,” first, let us face the SCIENTIFIC REALITY that there is not a “climate crisis” affecting the world, as we can clearly see from this statement from Chapter 3 of the load of horse**** called the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg, to wit:
There is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’ (high confidence).
end quotes
And yes, people, there is high confidence that there is “no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’” precisely because there is no such thing as the “earth’s climate,” as we can clearly see from this excerpt from “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, which is “the science,” to wit:
Thus, it is not altogether surprising to learn that there is evidence, from travellers’ observations of the landscape and lakes in Siberia, that northwest Siberia experienced great warmth (presumably due to southerly winds) in and around the 1690s when northern, western and central Europe had their coldest time, with frequent northerly and northwesterly winds from the Norwegian Sea.
end quotes
Yes, people, this “GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE” BULL**** we are being fed by Greta and the IPCC crowd and the Democrats in OUR Congress, is exactly that – un-scientific horse**** as we can see from Chapter 3 of Greta’s IPCC Report she submitted as her testimony to OUR Congress on September 18, 2019, as follows:
Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence).
end quotes
And as we can clearly see from this science from the North Carolina Department of Health bulletin on Albedo:
Albedo (al-bee-doh) is a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed.
Something that appears white reflects most of the light that hits it and has a high albedo, while something that looks dark absorbs most of the light that hits it, indicating a low albedo.
Why do I care?
Albedo is another name for reflectivity.
The albedo of a surface determines how much sunlight will be absorbed and warm the surface compared to another surface that reflects most of the light and does not change temperature.
How does this relate to public health?
Because of the effects of albedo, highly developed areas such as urban cities can experience higher average temperatures than surrounding suburban or rural areas, a phenomenon known as the “urban heat island effect.”
The higher average temperatures can be attributed to less vegetation, higher population densities, and more infrastructure with darker surfaces (asphalt roads, brick buildings, etc.) that generate, reflect, and trap heat during hot summer months.
Research has found that in some urban cities, the average air temperature can be as much as 22°F hotter in the evenings than surrounding areas.
People who live in urban cities may be at greater risk for heat-related illnesses.
end quotes
So, these lawyer clowns at this IPCC are taking those numbers and they are averaging them with other places that are not urban heat islands, which serves their purpose by bringing the lower temperatures up, so they can put the blame on CO2 for causing that temperature rise, when it is anything but, and that is how the Democrats in OUR Congress is creating this “CLIMATE CRISIS” out of pure bull****.
Is the climate changing?
Of course it is, because it always has.
Does it create “crises” for people as it changes?
Judge for yourself:
From “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:
In southern Europe we find records which indicate an enhanced variability from year to year and decade to decade, particularly as regards rainfall, and the difficulties it caused.
In Spain there were some runs of drought years and others characterized by flooding of the rivers.
Neither Spain nor the south of France escaped altogether the incidence of severe winters, which froze the rivers.
And in southern France Ladurie discovered that individual cold or wet years, when the harvests were disappointing, lay behind many short-term crises.
Farther east, in Turkey, travellers and European consular representatives described large areas of the plateau of Anatolia in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries as becoming desiccated, with empty villages and deserted agricultural land.
Farther south, in Ethiopia a European, Manoel de Almeida, in 1628 reported snows, believed to be permanent, on the peaks at a level where it no longer occurs; and in Mauretania, in West Africa, reports of oak woods in the seventeenth century suggest a cooler and wetter regime than now, although the fall of the empire of Mali in 1591 suggests that the region was becoming drier than it had been.
The situation in this part of Africa is made clearer by the chronology of floods and famines in the region of the great bend in the course of the River Niger, which can be constructed from reports still extant.
Timbuktu (16° 37α N 2° 36α W) lies at the northern limit of the zone affected by floods of the river.
The records make it clear that the floods in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries habitually penetrated farther into the city than those of modern times, even reaching the citadel, the ancient palace of the kings of Mali and Songhay, and causing the population to flee.
The first of these great floods was on 16–17 December 1592, going beyond all previously known bounds.
Others occurred in the winter of 1602–3, in all three winters between 1616 and 1619, and four or five more times in that century, between 1640 and 1672.
There were three more cases between 1703 and 1738, although not quite so extensive; and none have been so extensive since.
The floods result from unusually heavy rains in the previous summer over the upper basin of the River Niger far away in westernmost Africa, in Guinea, in latitudes 10–12°N.
Farther north around Timbuktu, near the bend where the river turns back towards the southeast, there was an abnormal incidence of famines due to droughts in about the same period, between 1617 and 1743, often in the very same years as the great floods of the river but also including 1695 and 1697.
The chronology indicates that the severest phases of the Little Ice Age coincided with a time when the summer rains over west Africa were being held closer to the equator, rather than migrating seasonally to 15–20° N or beyond as in this century before 1960; in those circumstances there were in the seventeenth century frequent severe droughts in the Sahel zone at Timbuktu.
In the central longitudes of Africa, Lake Chad (13–14°N 14–17°E) was at a level possibly 4 m higher than today, though falling ultimately to today’s level; and there seems to have been a migration of peoples towards the moister south going on during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
But in east Africa at those times, unlike today, the situation evidently differed from that in west Africa at the same latitudes.
The very high levels of the yearly floods of the River Nile at Cairo, especially in the late seventeenth century, indicate that the summer rains over Ethiopia were heavy, while the low levels of the Nile then prevailing at other times of the year point to less rain at the equator over east Africa than in this century.
It looks as if the Little Ice Age regime pressed especially far south in longitudes near the Greenwich meridian.
In India examination of the seventeenth century records indicates more frequent interruptions and failures of the monsoon than in our times, and according to Bryson the abandonment of the great city of Fatepur Sikri in 1588 only sixteen years after its construction can be attributed to failure of the water supply.
A deficiency of the summer monsoon in the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the evidence of expansion of the polar cap and of the circumpolar vortex, although it is likely that great meridional (north-south) distortions of the upper atmospheric flow in that sector as elsewhere caused marked variations from year to year and sometimes within each year.
end quotes
And they wonder, still they wonder, when will Greta, the Democrats and the IPCC crowd stop the rain?
And so do I.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-199871
Paul Plante says :
Staying with what is becoming known as the “GREAT GRETA CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM,” first, let us face the SCIENTIFIC REALITY that there is not a “climate crisis” affecting the world, as we can clearly see from this statement from Chapter 3 of the load of horse**** called the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg, to wit:
There is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’ (high confidence).
end quotes
And yes, people, there is high confidence that there is “no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’” precisely because there is no such thing as the “earth’s climate,” as we can clearly see from this excerpt from “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, which is “the science,” to wit:
Thus, it is not altogether surprising to learn that there is evidence, from travellers’ observations of the landscape and lakes in Siberia, that northwest Siberia experienced great warmth (presumably due to southerly winds) in and around the 1690s when northern, western and central Europe had their coldest time, with frequent northerly and northwesterly winds from the Norwegian Sea.
end quotes
Yes, people, this “GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE” BULL**** we are being fed by Greta and the IPCC crowd and the Democrats in OUR Congress, is exactly that – un-scientific horse**** as we can see from Chapter 3 of Greta’s IPCC Report she submitted as her testimony to OUR Congress on September 18, 2019, as follows:
Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence).
end quotes
And as we can clearly see from this science from the North Carolina Department of Health bulletin on Albedo:
Albedo (al-bee-doh) is a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed.
Something that appears white reflects most of the light that hits it and has a high albedo, while something that looks dark absorbs most of the light that hits it, indicating a low albedo.
Why do I care?
Albedo is another name for reflectivity.
The albedo of a surface determines how much sunlight will be absorbed and warm the surface compared to another surface that reflects most of the light and does not change temperature.
How does this relate to public health?
Because of the effects of albedo, highly developed areas such as urban cities can experience higher average temperatures than surrounding suburban or rural areas, a phenomenon known as the “urban heat island effect.”
The higher average temperatures can be attributed to less vegetation, higher population densities, and more infrastructure with darker surfaces (asphalt roads, brick buildings, etc.) that generate, reflect, and trap heat during hot summer months.
Research has found that in some urban cities, the average air temperature can be as much as 22°F hotter in the evenings than surrounding areas.
People who live in urban cities may be at greater risk for heat-related illnesses.
end quotes
So, these lawyer clowns at this IPCC are taking those numbers and they are averaging them with other places that are not urban heat islands, which serves their purpose by bringing the lower temperatures up, so they can put the blame on CO2 for causing that temperature rise, when it is anything but, and that is how the Democrats in OUR Congress is creating this “CLIMATE CRISIS” out of pure bull****.
Is the climate changing?
Of course it is, because it always has.
Does it create “crises” for people as it changes?
Judge for yourself:
From “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:
In southern Europe we find records which indicate an enhanced variability from year to year and decade to decade, particularly as regards rainfall, and the difficulties it caused.
In Spain there were some runs of drought years and others characterized by flooding of the rivers.
Neither Spain nor the south of France escaped altogether the incidence of severe winters, which froze the rivers.
And in southern France Ladurie discovered that individual cold or wet years, when the harvests were disappointing, lay behind many short-term crises.
Farther east, in Turkey, travellers and European consular representatives described large areas of the plateau of Anatolia in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries as becoming desiccated, with empty villages and deserted agricultural land.
Farther south, in Ethiopia a European, Manoel de Almeida, in 1628 reported snows, believed to be permanent, on the peaks at a level where it no longer occurs; and in Mauretania, in West Africa, reports of oak woods in the seventeenth century suggest a cooler and wetter regime than now, although the fall of the empire of Mali in 1591 suggests that the region was becoming drier than it had been.
The situation in this part of Africa is made clearer by the chronology of floods and famines in the region of the great bend in the course of the River Niger, which can be constructed from reports still extant.
Timbuktu (16° 37α N 2° 36α W) lies at the northern limit of the zone affected by floods of the river.
The records make it clear that the floods in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries habitually penetrated farther into the city than those of modern times, even reaching the citadel, the ancient palace of the kings of Mali and Songhay, and causing the population to flee.
The first of these great floods was on 16–17 December 1592, going beyond all previously known bounds.
Others occurred in the winter of 1602–3, in all three winters between 1616 and 1619, and four or five more times in that century, between 1640 and 1672.
There were three more cases between 1703 and 1738, although not quite so extensive; and none have been so extensive since.
The floods result from unusually heavy rains in the previous summer over the upper basin of the River Niger far away in westernmost Africa, in Guinea, in latitudes 10–12°N.
Farther north around Timbuktu, near the bend where the river turns back towards the southeast, there was an abnormal incidence of famines due to droughts in about the same period, between 1617 and 1743, often in the very same years as the great floods of the river but also including 1695 and 1697.
The chronology indicates that the severest phases of the Little Ice Age coincided with a time when the summer rains over west Africa were being held closer to the equator, rather than migrating seasonally to 15–20° N or beyond as in this century before 1960; in those circumstances there were in the seventeenth century frequent severe droughts in the Sahel zone at Timbuktu.
In the central longitudes of Africa, Lake Chad (13–14°N 14–17°E) was at a level possibly 4 m higher than today, though falling ultimately to today’s level; and there seems to have been a migration of peoples towards the moister south going on during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
But in east Africa at those times, unlike today, the situation evidently differed from that in west Africa at the same latitudes.
The very high levels of the yearly floods of the River Nile at Cairo, especially in the late seventeenth century, indicate that the summer rains over Ethiopia were heavy, while the low levels of the Nile then prevailing at other times of the year point to less rain at the equator over east Africa than in this century.
It looks as if the Little Ice Age regime pressed especially far south in longitudes near the Greenwich meridian.
In India examination of the seventeenth century records indicates more frequent interruptions and failures of the monsoon than in our times, and according to Bryson the abandonment of the great city of Fatepur Sikri in 1588 only sixteen years after its construction can be attributed to failure of the water supply.
A deficiency of the summer monsoon in the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the evidence of expansion of the polar cap and of the circumpolar vortex, although it is likely that great meridional (north-south) distortions of the upper atmospheric flow in that sector as elsewhere caused marked variations from year to year and sometimes within each year.
end quotes
And they wonder, still they wonder, when will Greta, the Democrats and the IPCC crowd stop the rain?
And so do I.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-199871
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 24, 2019 at 1:24 pm
Paul Plante says :
As to Lt. Col. Vindman, he holds a commission issued to him by the president of the United States of America pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2.
According to DoDI 1310.02, March 26, 2015, individuals recommended for appointment will be mentally, physically, morally, and professionally qualified for appointment, but that would in turn depend on the values of the president as to who is mentally and morally qualified, and given that Vindman was promoted to lieutenant colonel in September 2015, that would make him an Obama colonel reflecting the “values” of Obama, which are polar opposites from those of Trump.
Whether Vindman was a Hillary Clinton supporter as a result is presently unknown.
As to the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky. Vindman stated:
“I was concerned by the call.”
end quotes
Cool, dude, but, hey, Trump happens to be the ONLY OFFICIAL in the federal government according to the Constitution you swore to defend who is responsible for foreign policy and taking care that OUR Laws are enforced, and he is your commander-in-chief, as well, whether or not you like it, so what concerns you about how Trump conducts the affairs of the executive branch of OUR government and $7.50 plus tip will buy you a grande latte at Starbucks with plenty of sprinkles on top.
I’m a Viet Nam combat veteran myself, twice-wounded, and while I didn’t like the foreign policy of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson and all the lies he told, SO WHAT?
UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY DO NOT MAKE FOREIGN POLICY!
Vindman then continues as follows:
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine.”
end quotes
YOU didn’t think it proper that Trump demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens for alleged corruption?
Do tell, dude – based on what?
Your feelings?
Your emotions?
Or the fact that Joe Biden is a Democrat?
As an American citizen who is a combat veteran, I thought it was highly appropriate, based on OUR laws and OUR constitution.
Vindman then went on to say:
"I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."
end quotes
YOU realized it?
Uh, okay.
So, Colonel Vindman, when did you say it was that you were placed in charge of foreign policy over a sitting president of the United States of America?
Or are you a part of a military coup being staged here as if we were some third-world banana republic ****hole where military officers routinely stage coups and take over operations of the government?
What horse****!
And then we come to this absolute gem from Colonel Vindman, to wit:
“This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
end quotes
Having Ukraine investigate alleged corrupt acts by Joe Biden would undermine OUR national security here in the United States of America?
That is horse****!
Have we become so pathetically weak as a nation thanks to Hussein Obama commissioning misfits as officers in our military that we now need to depend on a chronically corrupt ****hole like Ukraine to protect OUR National security?
Is that your sworn testimony here, Colonel, because this AMERICAN CITIZEN would like some further clarification on that point about us being so weak thanks to Obama that we now need Ukraine to protect us from Russia?
Which leads us to this absolute tear-jerker from Colonel Vindman’s opening statement to the Democrat inquisitors he was sucking up to for political favor (hey, if you want to be a general, you have to be political) as he helps them take down his commander-in-chief, in what the Romans might have construed an act of mutiny on Vindman’s part, as in his opening statement, Vindman promised to his father that he made the right decision fleeing to the United States:
“In Russia, my act of […] offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life.”
“I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.”
“Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United States of America in search of a better life for our family.”
“Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”
end quotes
And that ends today’s episode of “REAL WEIRD DRAMA FROM THE NATION’S CAPITAL,” but don’t go away, because tomarrow’s episode promises to be even more of a tear-jerker for all you Americans who just love a good cry over someone like Col. Vindman who is the real victim here, with his feelings and emotions having been so upset by Trump doing his duty as United States president.
Moving on to sports, hey, how about those Mets, now will you, and will the Celtics go anywhere this season, as if anyone cares?
And the weather is changing, so if you don’t like it now, wait a minute and it’ll be something else and maybe you will like that better.
And now we pause for a commercial break and station identification, so if you need a snack or a brew, best run and get it now so you don’t miss the rest of this incredible show!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-200148
Paul Plante says :
As to Lt. Col. Vindman, he holds a commission issued to him by the president of the United States of America pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2.
According to DoDI 1310.02, March 26, 2015, individuals recommended for appointment will be mentally, physically, morally, and professionally qualified for appointment, but that would in turn depend on the values of the president as to who is mentally and morally qualified, and given that Vindman was promoted to lieutenant colonel in September 2015, that would make him an Obama colonel reflecting the “values” of Obama, which are polar opposites from those of Trump.
Whether Vindman was a Hillary Clinton supporter as a result is presently unknown.
As to the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky. Vindman stated:
“I was concerned by the call.”
end quotes
Cool, dude, but, hey, Trump happens to be the ONLY OFFICIAL in the federal government according to the Constitution you swore to defend who is responsible for foreign policy and taking care that OUR Laws are enforced, and he is your commander-in-chief, as well, whether or not you like it, so what concerns you about how Trump conducts the affairs of the executive branch of OUR government and $7.50 plus tip will buy you a grande latte at Starbucks with plenty of sprinkles on top.
I’m a Viet Nam combat veteran myself, twice-wounded, and while I didn’t like the foreign policy of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson and all the lies he told, SO WHAT?
UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY DO NOT MAKE FOREIGN POLICY!
Vindman then continues as follows:
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine.”
end quotes
YOU didn’t think it proper that Trump demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens for alleged corruption?
Do tell, dude – based on what?
Your feelings?
Your emotions?
Or the fact that Joe Biden is a Democrat?
As an American citizen who is a combat veteran, I thought it was highly appropriate, based on OUR laws and OUR constitution.
Vindman then went on to say:
"I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."
end quotes
YOU realized it?
Uh, okay.
So, Colonel Vindman, when did you say it was that you were placed in charge of foreign policy over a sitting president of the United States of America?
Or are you a part of a military coup being staged here as if we were some third-world banana republic ****hole where military officers routinely stage coups and take over operations of the government?
What horse****!
And then we come to this absolute gem from Colonel Vindman, to wit:
“This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
end quotes
Having Ukraine investigate alleged corrupt acts by Joe Biden would undermine OUR national security here in the United States of America?
That is horse****!
Have we become so pathetically weak as a nation thanks to Hussein Obama commissioning misfits as officers in our military that we now need to depend on a chronically corrupt ****hole like Ukraine to protect OUR National security?
Is that your sworn testimony here, Colonel, because this AMERICAN CITIZEN would like some further clarification on that point about us being so weak thanks to Obama that we now need Ukraine to protect us from Russia?
Which leads us to this absolute tear-jerker from Colonel Vindman’s opening statement to the Democrat inquisitors he was sucking up to for political favor (hey, if you want to be a general, you have to be political) as he helps them take down his commander-in-chief, in what the Romans might have construed an act of mutiny on Vindman’s part, as in his opening statement, Vindman promised to his father that he made the right decision fleeing to the United States:
“In Russia, my act of […] offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life.”
“I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.”
“Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United States of America in search of a better life for our family.”
“Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”
end quotes
And that ends today’s episode of “REAL WEIRD DRAMA FROM THE NATION’S CAPITAL,” but don’t go away, because tomarrow’s episode promises to be even more of a tear-jerker for all you Americans who just love a good cry over someone like Col. Vindman who is the real victim here, with his feelings and emotions having been so upset by Trump doing his duty as United States president.
Moving on to sports, hey, how about those Mets, now will you, and will the Celtics go anywhere this season, as if anyone cares?
And the weather is changing, so if you don’t like it now, wait a minute and it’ll be something else and maybe you will like that better.
And now we pause for a commercial break and station identification, so if you need a snack or a brew, best run and get it now so you don’t miss the rest of this incredible show!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-200148
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 24, 2019 at 7:35 pm
Paul Plante says :
MJM, first of all, as a fellow American citizen, let me extend my appreciation of the fact that you took time to try and wade through all of what I have written above about this BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg – I know that it is tedious reading, having read through the document several times, word for word for word for word for word, ad infinitum, by design of course, to bury us in BULL****, so we won’t have the endurance to stomach reading another word, and hence, will never make it to the end where it states thusly, to wit:
Chapter 5 – Executive Summary
This chapter takes sustainable development as the starting point and focus for analysis.
It considers the broad and multifaceted bi-directional interplay between sustainable development, including its focus on eradicating poverty and reducing inequality in their multidimensional aspects, and climate actions in a 1.5°C warmer world.
end quotes
So, MJM, we American people have a BAMBOOZLE going on here, plain and simple, and that is really what this discussion should be about – not Greta, who is the equivalent of a child being used as a drug mule here.
Her purpose was fulfilled when she dumped that BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018, on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019.
Exit little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg stage right.
Had Greta never appeared before OUR Congress, by invitation, she indeed would be a non-entity, other than a lost, emotionally-disturbed little girl urging our American children to stay home from school so they can be stupid.
But she did, and history was changed as a result, which brings us to today and this BAMBOOZLE being foisted off on us by the Democrats, which BAMBOOZLE is happening in OUR national capital of Washington, D.C., where we are being this following horse****, to wit:
“Months ago, the House passed the Climate Action Now Act to take this crisis seriously,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Susan Wild (PA-07) said.
end quotes
Except, MJM, THERE IS NO “CLIMATE CRISIS” mentioned anywhere in the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg.
Not a single word, in fact.
So besides from out of her ***, where is NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Susan Wild (PA-07) getting this “crisis” language from?
Besides nothing that I have found, what scientific basis does she have to justify her HYSTERIA MONGERING here with this wild and crazy talk about a “climate crisis?”
Are you for being lied to, MJM, by members of our House of Representatives?
How about this:
“As our country continues to experience dangerous wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events, we need bold leadership on climate.”
“Instead, President Trump has abdicated our role as a world leader in combating the climate crisis to side with polluters,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Sean Casten (IL-06) said.
end quotes
Combatting the climate crisis, MJM?
Here is exactly how NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Sean Casten (IL-06) plans to do it:
Chapter 5 – Executive Summary
Without societal transformation and rapid implementation of ambitious greenhouse gas reduction measures, pathways to limiting warming to 1.5°C and achieving sustainable development will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve (high confidence).
end quotes
Societal transformation, MJM – that is what this is all about, and a CONTRIVED CLIMATE CRISIS is the excuse needed to make it happen, as we are all made to feel panic so we cannot think straight.
That is what this BULL**** game is about – a POWER GRAB, as we can see by returning to the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg, in Chapter 5 – Executive Summary, as follows:
Compared to current conditions, 1.5°C of global warming would nonetheless pose heightened risks to eradicating poverty, reducing inequalities and ensuring human and ecosystem well-being (medium evidence, high agreement).
end quotes
How about no evidence at all, because there is none – that is an otherwise empty statement intended to make it clear to the Democrats in OUR House of Representatives, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that yes, this really is about “eradicating world poverty,” which is an endeavor loaded to the gills with opportunities for the kinds of graft the Democrats just love to get their hands on.
So this is LBJ’s “WAR ON POVERTY” on steroids, as well as nation-building on a global scale, all in the name of fighting an imaginary “climate crisis” cooked up by this IPCC crowd to shake loose gobs of money from WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, to make everybody else in the world as rich as the Democrats in this country are, which takes us back to Chapter 5, as follows:
Many strategies for sustainable development enable transformational adaptation for a 1.5°C warmer world, provided attention is paid to reducing poverty in all its forms and to promoting equity and participation in decision-making (medium evidence, high agreement).
end quotes
Ah, yes, MJM, what a laudable goal for the Democrats to pursue – reducing poverty in all its forms!
And wouldn’t a great place for the Democrats to start that process be right here, given that back in the 1960s, the Democrats declared a WAR ON POVERTY that they still haven’t won yet?
And going back to the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg one last time, we have this to consider, to wit:
Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.
end quotes
Which is more HORSE****, MJM – an excuse to create a “social democratic” world government to provide “social justice,” as follows:
Addressing challenges and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high confidence).
Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially acceptable pathways towards low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with moral, practical and political difficulties and inevitable trade-offs (very high confidence). {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3, Box 5.3}
It entails deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values, well-being, risks and resilience and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom (medium evidence, high agreement).
The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions (high confidence).
Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur urgent, ambitious and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement). {5.5.3, 5.6.5}
end quotes
Are you for Greta Thunberg re-examining your individual values, MJM, to see if they are societally acceptable to her?
And should OUR Congress be lying to us about a climate crisis that does not have a scientific basis in fact?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-200193
Paul Plante says :
MJM, first of all, as a fellow American citizen, let me extend my appreciation of the fact that you took time to try and wade through all of what I have written above about this BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg – I know that it is tedious reading, having read through the document several times, word for word for word for word for word, ad infinitum, by design of course, to bury us in BULL****, so we won’t have the endurance to stomach reading another word, and hence, will never make it to the end where it states thusly, to wit:
Chapter 5 – Executive Summary
This chapter takes sustainable development as the starting point and focus for analysis.
It considers the broad and multifaceted bi-directional interplay between sustainable development, including its focus on eradicating poverty and reducing inequality in their multidimensional aspects, and climate actions in a 1.5°C warmer world.
end quotes
So, MJM, we American people have a BAMBOOZLE going on here, plain and simple, and that is really what this discussion should be about – not Greta, who is the equivalent of a child being used as a drug mule here.
Her purpose was fulfilled when she dumped that BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018, on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019.
Exit little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg stage right.
Had Greta never appeared before OUR Congress, by invitation, she indeed would be a non-entity, other than a lost, emotionally-disturbed little girl urging our American children to stay home from school so they can be stupid.
But she did, and history was changed as a result, which brings us to today and this BAMBOOZLE being foisted off on us by the Democrats, which BAMBOOZLE is happening in OUR national capital of Washington, D.C., where we are being this following horse****, to wit:
“Months ago, the House passed the Climate Action Now Act to take this crisis seriously,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Susan Wild (PA-07) said.
end quotes
Except, MJM, THERE IS NO “CLIMATE CRISIS” mentioned anywhere in the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg.
Not a single word, in fact.
So besides from out of her ***, where is NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Susan Wild (PA-07) getting this “crisis” language from?
Besides nothing that I have found, what scientific basis does she have to justify her HYSTERIA MONGERING here with this wild and crazy talk about a “climate crisis?”
Are you for being lied to, MJM, by members of our House of Representatives?
How about this:
“As our country continues to experience dangerous wildfires, flooding, and extreme weather events, we need bold leadership on climate.”
“Instead, President Trump has abdicated our role as a world leader in combating the climate crisis to side with polluters,” NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Sean Casten (IL-06) said.
end quotes
Combatting the climate crisis, MJM?
Here is exactly how NDC Climate Change Task Force Co-Chair Sean Casten (IL-06) plans to do it:
Chapter 5 – Executive Summary
Without societal transformation and rapid implementation of ambitious greenhouse gas reduction measures, pathways to limiting warming to 1.5°C and achieving sustainable development will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve (high confidence).
end quotes
Societal transformation, MJM – that is what this is all about, and a CONTRIVED CLIMATE CRISIS is the excuse needed to make it happen, as we are all made to feel panic so we cannot think straight.
That is what this BULL**** game is about – a POWER GRAB, as we can see by returning to the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg, in Chapter 5 – Executive Summary, as follows:
Compared to current conditions, 1.5°C of global warming would nonetheless pose heightened risks to eradicating poverty, reducing inequalities and ensuring human and ecosystem well-being (medium evidence, high agreement).
end quotes
How about no evidence at all, because there is none – that is an otherwise empty statement intended to make it clear to the Democrats in OUR House of Representatives, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that yes, this really is about “eradicating world poverty,” which is an endeavor loaded to the gills with opportunities for the kinds of graft the Democrats just love to get their hands on.
So this is LBJ’s “WAR ON POVERTY” on steroids, as well as nation-building on a global scale, all in the name of fighting an imaginary “climate crisis” cooked up by this IPCC crowd to shake loose gobs of money from WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, to make everybody else in the world as rich as the Democrats in this country are, which takes us back to Chapter 5, as follows:
Many strategies for sustainable development enable transformational adaptation for a 1.5°C warmer world, provided attention is paid to reducing poverty in all its forms and to promoting equity and participation in decision-making (medium evidence, high agreement).
end quotes
Ah, yes, MJM, what a laudable goal for the Democrats to pursue – reducing poverty in all its forms!
And wouldn’t a great place for the Democrats to start that process be right here, given that back in the 1960s, the Democrats declared a WAR ON POVERTY that they still haven’t won yet?
And going back to the BULL**** IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 and then dumped on OUR Congress on September 18, 2019 by little rich Swedish girl Greta Thunberg one last time, we have this to consider, to wit:
Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.
end quotes
Which is more HORSE****, MJM – an excuse to create a “social democratic” world government to provide “social justice,” as follows:
Addressing challenges and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high confidence).
Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially acceptable pathways towards low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with moral, practical and political difficulties and inevitable trade-offs (very high confidence). {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3, Box 5.3}
It entails deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values, well-being, risks and resilience and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom (medium evidence, high agreement).
The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions (high confidence).
Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur urgent, ambitious and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement). {5.5.3, 5.6.5}
end quotes
Are you for Greta Thunberg re-examining your individual values, MJM, to see if they are societally acceptable to her?
And should OUR Congress be lying to us about a climate crisis that does not have a scientific basis in fact?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-200193
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019 at 7:43 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, NOAA!
According to its propaganda page in Cyberspace, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is the agency of the United States federal government responsible for monitoring our climate and our environment, and taking steps to preserve them.
According to its website, NOAA’s tasks include:
Environmental Assessment and Prediction:
• Improving short-term warning and forecasting services
• Forecasting climate trends and changes
• Promoting safe navigation
Protecting Natural Resources While Helping Develop Them:
• Building sustainable fisheries and recovering protected species
• Sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems
• Observing the environment
end quotes
NOAA enters this discussion on several levels, starting with an AP News article entitled “NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules” by Jay Reeves and Seth Borenstein on 9 September 2019, as follows:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.
Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe.
The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”
“My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night.
In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy.
McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
And there, right before our eyes, thanks to the integrity of the Cape Charles Mirror, is a clear-cut case of a violation of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” because it is clear that the allegiance of Ko Barrett, deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to the IPCC, which is a political organization with an ideology foreign to American values.
As to who this Ko Barrett is, the IPCC informs us thusly:
People Profile: Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, IPCC
Ko Barrett is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise.
In 2015, Ko Barrett was one of the first women elected to serve as a vice chair of the IPCC.
For over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC.
She has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
Ko Barrett is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
end quotes
Clearly, her agenda is driven in large part by what the IPCC wants from her, given that the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, whose objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
Which then takes us back to this hysterical statement from her, as follows:
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
To which I respond by saying, “based on what?”
What is the scientific basis for that sensationalist statement of hers that “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” because I took the trouble to pose this question to the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, to wit:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor does Ko Barrett!
So why then is she engaging in hysteria-mongering for the IPCC?
And why is NOAA with its vaunted Science Integrity Policy turning a blind eye to it?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-202756
Paul Plante says :
So, NOAA!
According to its propaganda page in Cyberspace, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is the agency of the United States federal government responsible for monitoring our climate and our environment, and taking steps to preserve them.
According to its website, NOAA’s tasks include:
Environmental Assessment and Prediction:
• Improving short-term warning and forecasting services
• Forecasting climate trends and changes
• Promoting safe navigation
Protecting Natural Resources While Helping Develop Them:
• Building sustainable fisheries and recovering protected species
• Sustaining healthy coastal ecosystems
• Observing the environment
end quotes
NOAA enters this discussion on several levels, starting with an AP News article entitled “NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules” by Jay Reeves and Seth Borenstein on 9 September 2019, as follows:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.
Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe.
The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”
“My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night.
In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy.
McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
And there, right before our eyes, thanks to the integrity of the Cape Charles Mirror, is a clear-cut case of a violation of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” because it is clear that the allegiance of Ko Barrett, deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is to the IPCC, which is a political organization with an ideology foreign to American values.
As to who this Ko Barrett is, the IPCC informs us thusly:
People Profile: Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, IPCC
Ko Barrett is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise.
In 2015, Ko Barrett was one of the first women elected to serve as a vice chair of the IPCC.
For over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC.
She has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
Ko Barrett is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
end quotes
Clearly, her agenda is driven in large part by what the IPCC wants from her, given that the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, whose objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
Which then takes us back to this hysterical statement from her, as follows:
“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
end quotes
To which I respond by saying, “based on what?”
What is the scientific basis for that sensationalist statement of hers that “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” because I took the trouble to pose this question to the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, to wit:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor does Ko Barrett!
So why then is she engaging in hysteria-mongering for the IPCC?
And why is NOAA with its vaunted Science Integrity Policy turning a blind eye to it?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-202756
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 3, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, contrived science, people, where the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” and here I am focusing in on this hysterical and frankly, quite stupid statement from the IPCC in the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
end quotes
Wetter hurricanes?
Other nastier weather systems?
Are you kidding me here?
What exactly is a “wetter” hurricane, given that I have yet to hear of one that was dry?
And how about these “other nastier weather systems?”
Nastier that what?
And that is not “science,” people, because scientists do not use such terms as “nastier weather systems” – only hysterical people who can’t think straight do, or those who are dishonest.
But I want to stay with the subject of the IPCC’s “contrived science,” or “science” having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, which takes us back to CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A more serious reversion to colder climate came with the year 1879, a year well within the class of the 1690s.
Through December 1878 and January 1879 the temperature in England stayed mainly below the freezing point, and it was very snowy; the spring was cold, with May colder than many an April; the summer was the wettest and one of the seven coldest in the long instrument records for England; it was followed by a notably cold autumn and another near freezing month in December.
The cold wet weather delayed the ripening of the harvest, so that even in East Anglia in some places the corn had not been gathered in by Christmas.
end quotes
Now, if one were to calmly and rationally think about what “nasty” weather might be like, I would certainly put that forth as a real good example of the nasty weather we have already experienced on this earth of ours, and that had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide, which takes us back to the real science, to wit:
But the effects of 1879 and the difficult years with cold winters and wet summers which followed were not confined to England.
The peak emigration of people from the countries of northern, central and western Europe was in the 1880s.
The years 1876–9 also brought droughts, monsoon failures and famine in China and India.
The old stories of medieval Europe’s famine situations of outbreaks of cannibalism and children sold into slavery repeated themselves in these years in the Far East.
end quotes
Those are the times these fools on this IPCC want to take us back to with their cry that the United States must go to zero CO2 emissions by 2030.
Moving right along:
The temperature records in China (fig. 86) and indicators such as the freezing dates of Lake Suwa in central Japan (fig. 90) show that this was one of the severest phases of the Little Ice Age in the Far East.
The deaths due to famine in the late 1870s in India and China have been estimated at 14–18 million.
The historical documentary information which begins to be available from the southern hemisphere in the centuries described in this and the previous chapter seems to confirm that there too a colder climate developed during the last millennium.
Glaciers advanced in South America and New Zealand, and there were appropriate changes in the New Zealand forests.
But the timing of the severest phases was different, it seems almost opposite, to that in the northern hemisphere.
We have referred to evidence of this in chapter 3 (p. 39).
Captain Cook’s voyages in the 1770s and others on to the 1830s confirm that the Antarctic sea ice was more restricted and open sea extended farther south, although those were times when the northern polar ice was well forward and troubling Iceland.
Later in the nineteenth century, in the 1850s and around 1900, the southern sea ice extended farther north and there were many accounts from the sailing ships of those days of sightings of the great tabular icebergs calved from the Antarctic inland ice drifting to much lower latitudes, off the River Plate and approaching the other southern continents.
After 1894–5, when there was a good deal of ice on the Thames in London, there was a long respite from severe winters in England and in Europe generally.
Not again was there a month with mean temperature below the freezing point in England until January 1940.
end quotes
When one reads actual climate history, which is based on extensive records that the IPCC has pretty much successfully buried, one can see how the IPCC has contrived its “science” for the purpose of creating fear in people to advance its agenda, which is entirely political, given that the IPCC is a governmental body, not a scientific organization, which again takes us back to the real science, as follows:
Only the winters of 1916–17 and 1928–9 during that interval of forty-five years could be considered in any way severe, the February in both cases coming near to being a freezing month in England and causing some ice to appear on the Thames.
The much more severe winter of 1962–3 (3-month mean temperature in central England −0.3°C, January −2.1° C) never brought the water temperature in London’s river below about 10°C (50°F), owing to all the industrial and urban effluents now passed into the river.
end quotes
Now, if 1962-3 was a much more severe winter, how did that happen, given that the IPCC says it should have been warmer due to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere from dangerous anthropogenic (an invented word that means nothing at all) interference with the climate system?
Let’s go back to the science and see what more we can see:
It should plainly be desirable to update our portrayal in fig. 91a of the course of world-average temperature at the surface of the Earth, as indeed has been attempted in various quarters.
The most authoritative version is due to the (WMO/UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change14 (IPCC for short).
The curve here shown as fig. 91b represents the IPCC figures when looked at as the successive five-year means from 1860 to 1989.
The three-year mean for the remarkably warm years 1990–2 is the last point at the right-hand end of the graph.
The overall shape of this historical curve is the product of successive revisions adjusting the values for urban and industrial warming and any other possibly distorting influences at the observation sites — not least the changes that have taken place in the observing practices at sea with ever bigger ships, changes in the height of their decks above the water, and measurements in recent decades being made within the vessel in intake pipes instead of in open buckets.
This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
end quotes
WHOA, get that back off the page – publicly declaring that a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
What could I have been thinking when the IPCC climate crisis crowd says otherwise?
Getting back to the science:
All responsible researchers agree that the temperatures measured must be adjusted for peculiarities of the site and the changes of these peculiarities with time.
All these things have led to revisions of the data.
Urban and industrial influences also change with time, as does the pollution of various kinds which may influence the data.
Also, it is now appreciated that the climates of islands, big and small, differ from those over the open sea as well as from the climate of the nearest extensive land-masses.
Even the inhabited camps in polar wastes create their own climates through the artificially generated heat, smoke and pollution, all of which tend to be trapped locally and held beneath the temperature inversions.
The light wind speeds below the inversion also lead to a strong local concentration of the effects.
Hence, adjustments must be attempted even though they introduce an arbitrary element into the results.
end quotes
So, despite the fact that there is no rational scientific basis for this “global average” temperature, as it truly means nothing, nonetheless the IPCC and their parrots in the media will continue to use the term while shrieking as they did today about how warm it has gotten, as we here to the north of you dig out from under around two feet of snow that obviously failed to get the message from the IPCC and media that it is supposed to be warmer, not colder, which again takes us back to the science, to wit:
It is agreed that the 1880s and early 1890s were a cold time, though not everywhere in the northern hemisphere oceans, and that the twentieth century has been generally warmer.
Warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940.
The cooling which set in in the 1940s had a wobbly course, but the climatic record continued generally colder in the northern hemisphere until some time after 1970.
In the southern hemisphere, particularly the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic ocean zone, there was a rapid warming going on from about 1950 onwards.
Despite the rapid rise of world temperature after 1975 indicated by our fig. 91b (a graph produced by the IPCC which shows continuous warming for the earth), there has been a noteworthy occurrence — seen, for example, in the Danish temperature record here reproduced in fig. 28a (p. 80) and in other records in North America and Europe of further cold events or some continued colder conditions until 1985 to 1987.
The state of affairs at the time of writing (1994) seems to be that, after truly exceptional warmth in the years 1989–91, there has been some fall of temperature world-wide, which has been attributed by many to the effects of the great volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991.
end quotes
So why is the IPCC, and by extension the media, to include the AP and NPR, trying to concoct a false narrative that the earth’s climate is continually warming, when the earth has climatic zones, not an earth climate?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Paul Plante says :
So, contrived science, people, where the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” and here I am focusing in on this hysterical and frankly, quite stupid statement from the IPCC in the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
end quotes
Wetter hurricanes?
Other nastier weather systems?
Are you kidding me here?
What exactly is a “wetter” hurricane, given that I have yet to hear of one that was dry?
And how about these “other nastier weather systems?”
Nastier that what?
And that is not “science,” people, because scientists do not use such terms as “nastier weather systems” – only hysterical people who can’t think straight do, or those who are dishonest.
But I want to stay with the subject of the IPCC’s “contrived science,” or “science” having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, which takes us back to CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb, to wit:
A more serious reversion to colder climate came with the year 1879, a year well within the class of the 1690s.
Through December 1878 and January 1879 the temperature in England stayed mainly below the freezing point, and it was very snowy; the spring was cold, with May colder than many an April; the summer was the wettest and one of the seven coldest in the long instrument records for England; it was followed by a notably cold autumn and another near freezing month in December.
The cold wet weather delayed the ripening of the harvest, so that even in East Anglia in some places the corn had not been gathered in by Christmas.
end quotes
Now, if one were to calmly and rationally think about what “nasty” weather might be like, I would certainly put that forth as a real good example of the nasty weather we have already experienced on this earth of ours, and that had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide, which takes us back to the real science, to wit:
But the effects of 1879 and the difficult years with cold winters and wet summers which followed were not confined to England.
The peak emigration of people from the countries of northern, central and western Europe was in the 1880s.
The years 1876–9 also brought droughts, monsoon failures and famine in China and India.
The old stories of medieval Europe’s famine situations of outbreaks of cannibalism and children sold into slavery repeated themselves in these years in the Far East.
end quotes
Those are the times these fools on this IPCC want to take us back to with their cry that the United States must go to zero CO2 emissions by 2030.
Moving right along:
The temperature records in China (fig. 86) and indicators such as the freezing dates of Lake Suwa in central Japan (fig. 90) show that this was one of the severest phases of the Little Ice Age in the Far East.
The deaths due to famine in the late 1870s in India and China have been estimated at 14–18 million.
The historical documentary information which begins to be available from the southern hemisphere in the centuries described in this and the previous chapter seems to confirm that there too a colder climate developed during the last millennium.
Glaciers advanced in South America and New Zealand, and there were appropriate changes in the New Zealand forests.
But the timing of the severest phases was different, it seems almost opposite, to that in the northern hemisphere.
We have referred to evidence of this in chapter 3 (p. 39).
Captain Cook’s voyages in the 1770s and others on to the 1830s confirm that the Antarctic sea ice was more restricted and open sea extended farther south, although those were times when the northern polar ice was well forward and troubling Iceland.
Later in the nineteenth century, in the 1850s and around 1900, the southern sea ice extended farther north and there were many accounts from the sailing ships of those days of sightings of the great tabular icebergs calved from the Antarctic inland ice drifting to much lower latitudes, off the River Plate and approaching the other southern continents.
After 1894–5, when there was a good deal of ice on the Thames in London, there was a long respite from severe winters in England and in Europe generally.
Not again was there a month with mean temperature below the freezing point in England until January 1940.
end quotes
When one reads actual climate history, which is based on extensive records that the IPCC has pretty much successfully buried, one can see how the IPCC has contrived its “science” for the purpose of creating fear in people to advance its agenda, which is entirely political, given that the IPCC is a governmental body, not a scientific organization, which again takes us back to the real science, as follows:
Only the winters of 1916–17 and 1928–9 during that interval of forty-five years could be considered in any way severe, the February in both cases coming near to being a freezing month in England and causing some ice to appear on the Thames.
The much more severe winter of 1962–3 (3-month mean temperature in central England −0.3°C, January −2.1° C) never brought the water temperature in London’s river below about 10°C (50°F), owing to all the industrial and urban effluents now passed into the river.
end quotes
Now, if 1962-3 was a much more severe winter, how did that happen, given that the IPCC says it should have been warmer due to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere from dangerous anthropogenic (an invented word that means nothing at all) interference with the climate system?
Let’s go back to the science and see what more we can see:
It should plainly be desirable to update our portrayal in fig. 91a of the course of world-average temperature at the surface of the Earth, as indeed has been attempted in various quarters.
The most authoritative version is due to the (WMO/UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change14 (IPCC for short).
The curve here shown as fig. 91b represents the IPCC figures when looked at as the successive five-year means from 1860 to 1989.
The three-year mean for the remarkably warm years 1990–2 is the last point at the right-hand end of the graph.
The overall shape of this historical curve is the product of successive revisions adjusting the values for urban and industrial warming and any other possibly distorting influences at the observation sites — not least the changes that have taken place in the observing practices at sea with ever bigger ships, changes in the height of their decks above the water, and measurements in recent decades being made within the vessel in intake pipes instead of in open buckets.
This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
end quotes
WHOA, get that back off the page – publicly declaring that a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.
What could I have been thinking when the IPCC climate crisis crowd says otherwise?
Getting back to the science:
All responsible researchers agree that the temperatures measured must be adjusted for peculiarities of the site and the changes of these peculiarities with time.
All these things have led to revisions of the data.
Urban and industrial influences also change with time, as does the pollution of various kinds which may influence the data.
Also, it is now appreciated that the climates of islands, big and small, differ from those over the open sea as well as from the climate of the nearest extensive land-masses.
Even the inhabited camps in polar wastes create their own climates through the artificially generated heat, smoke and pollution, all of which tend to be trapped locally and held beneath the temperature inversions.
The light wind speeds below the inversion also lead to a strong local concentration of the effects.
Hence, adjustments must be attempted even though they introduce an arbitrary element into the results.
end quotes
So, despite the fact that there is no rational scientific basis for this “global average” temperature, as it truly means nothing, nonetheless the IPCC and their parrots in the media will continue to use the term while shrieking as they did today about how warm it has gotten, as we here to the north of you dig out from under around two feet of snow that obviously failed to get the message from the IPCC and media that it is supposed to be warmer, not colder, which again takes us back to the science, to wit:
It is agreed that the 1880s and early 1890s were a cold time, though not everywhere in the northern hemisphere oceans, and that the twentieth century has been generally warmer.
Warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940.
The cooling which set in in the 1940s had a wobbly course, but the climatic record continued generally colder in the northern hemisphere until some time after 1970.
In the southern hemisphere, particularly the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic ocean zone, there was a rapid warming going on from about 1950 onwards.
Despite the rapid rise of world temperature after 1975 indicated by our fig. 91b (a graph produced by the IPCC which shows continuous warming for the earth), there has been a noteworthy occurrence — seen, for example, in the Danish temperature record here reproduced in fig. 28a (p. 80) and in other records in North America and Europe of further cold events or some continued colder conditions until 1985 to 1987.
The state of affairs at the time of writing (1994) seems to be that, after truly exceptional warmth in the years 1989–91, there has been some fall of temperature world-wide, which has been attributed by many to the effects of the great volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991.
end quotes
So why is the IPCC, and by extension the media, to include the AP and NPR, trying to concoct a false narrative that the earth’s climate is continually warming, when the earth has climatic zones, not an earth climate?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 4, 2019 at 10:03 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, who then is this Ko Barrett who is making these reckless, irresponsible, and frankly from my perspective as an engineer, quite hysterical statements about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them, which demonstrates a decided lack of both integrity and basic common sense which would tell a mature adult that you do not sow panic in a population based on hyperbole and falsehood?
And why have we got an elected official in what is a foreign governing body, the IPCC, serving as a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research, when that very much appears to be a major-league conflict of interest on her part?
And why is she apparently exempt from NOAA’s supposed Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” which she clearly is not doing making such irresponsible and reckless and hysterical comments to AP “science writer” Seth Borenstein about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them.
As to her position with NOAA, since we American citizens are closed out of the proceedings of the IPCC by which she was elected an IPCC co-chair, we are informed of the following from a NOAA press release entitled “Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator” on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, to wit:
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
end quotes
However, as we know, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself; rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, which is to say, it cherry-picks the “science” it wants to support its position that all climate change on earth today is a function of human beings, not natural processes, which according to the IPCC, no longer function, despite having done so for millions of years prior to this.
So it is another falsehood to state that IPCC reports are relevant to understanding climate change, unless you are a true believer in the carbon dioxide theory of the IPCC, which is a perversion of the original science of Svante Arrhenius back in the early-1900s.
Getting back to the NOAA press release:
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
end quotes
As to USAID, it’s mission statement reads as follows:
“As the U.S. Government’s principal leader, coordinator, and provider of international development and humanitarian assistance, USAID advances national security and economic prosperity, while demonstrating American values and goodwill abroad.”
“Our investments save lives, foster inclusive economic growth, reduce poverty, and strengthen democratic governance while helping other countries progress beyond needing our assistance.”
end quotes
As to their “vision of success,” we have:
“We anticipate, mitigate, and respond to global challenges, standing together with people affected by poverty and disaster.”
“The people we help achieve their own peace and prosperity and create stable institutions that respond to their needs.”
“We are recognized as the world’s premier development agency.”
“We are highly effective, efficient, accountable, and agile.”
end quotes
So, what has any of that to do with research into climate science, besides nothing, especially since Barrett only has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville?
What game is NOAA playing at here?
Stay tuned for more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Paul Plante says :
So, who then is this Ko Barrett who is making these reckless, irresponsible, and frankly from my perspective as an engineer, quite hysterical statements about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them, which demonstrates a decided lack of both integrity and basic common sense which would tell a mature adult that you do not sow panic in a population based on hyperbole and falsehood?
And why have we got an elected official in what is a foreign governing body, the IPCC, serving as a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, and the execution of NOAA programs including the Climate Program Office, Ocean Acidification Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration and Research, and the Office of Weather and Air Quality research, when that very much appears to be a major-league conflict of interest on her part?
And why is she apparently exempt from NOAA’s supposed Scientific Integrity Policy which tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology,” which she clearly is not doing making such irresponsible and reckless and hysterical comments to AP “science writer” Seth Borenstein about “(T)he consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” when she herself is not in possession of a shred of evidence she can point to or rely on to justify that patently hyberbolic statement, which is dishonest on her part, as well as fraudulent to make such hysterical claims without having any evidence whatsoever to support them.
As to her position with NOAA, since we American citizens are closed out of the proceedings of the IPCC by which she was elected an IPCC co-chair, we are informed of the following from a NOAA press release entitled “Ko Barrett named NOAA Research deputy assistant administrator” on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, to wit:
Craig McLean, NOAA’s assistant administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), has named Ko Barrett as the deputy assistant administrator for OAR Programs and Administration.
“Ko has many valuable skills that made her a sound choice for this leadership position, not the least of which are her experience in and knowledge of OAR and NOAA, a savvy sense of organizational and policy issues, and a willingness to challenge the status quo in unselfish and constructive ways,” said McLean.
Barrett comes to this position from seven years of serving as deputy director of OAR’s Climate Program Office, which oversees and coordinates climate activities across NOAA, addressing climate observations and monitoring, research and modeling, and the development and delivery of climate services.
For over 15 years, Barrett has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body created to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide that is relevant to understanding climate change.
end quotes
However, as we know, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself; rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, which is to say, it cherry-picks the “science” it wants to support its position that all climate change on earth today is a function of human beings, not natural processes, which according to the IPCC, no longer function, despite having done so for millions of years prior to this.
So it is another falsehood to state that IPCC reports are relevant to understanding climate change, unless you are a true believer in the carbon dioxide theory of the IPCC, which is a perversion of the original science of Svante Arrhenius back in the early-1900s.
Getting back to the NOAA press release:
She is widely recognized as an expert on climate policy, particularly on issues related to climate impacts and strategies to help society adapt to a changing world.
Barrett currently serves as one of three vice chairs of the IPCC.
Prior to joining NOAA in 2005, Barrett was the director of the Global Climate Change program at the US Agency for International Development and oversaw climate activities in more than 40 countries.
end quotes
As to USAID, it’s mission statement reads as follows:
“As the U.S. Government’s principal leader, coordinator, and provider of international development and humanitarian assistance, USAID advances national security and economic prosperity, while demonstrating American values and goodwill abroad.”
“Our investments save lives, foster inclusive economic growth, reduce poverty, and strengthen democratic governance while helping other countries progress beyond needing our assistance.”
end quotes
As to their “vision of success,” we have:
“We anticipate, mitigate, and respond to global challenges, standing together with people affected by poverty and disaster.”
“The people we help achieve their own peace and prosperity and create stable institutions that respond to their needs.”
“We are recognized as the world’s premier development agency.”
“We are highly effective, efficient, accountable, and agile.”
end quotes
So, what has any of that to do with research into climate science, besides nothing, especially since Barrett only has a bachelor of science degree in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Asheville?
What game is NOAA playing at here?
Stay tuned for more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204046
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 5, 2019 at 7:30 pm
Paul Plante says:
And let us stay with NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Programs & Administration Ko Barrett for the moment as one of the key people and prime movers behind this irresponsible and reckless HYSTERIA-MONGERING in the media about a contrived “CLIMATE CRISIS” that is literally making people crazy and berserk with fear, as we were witness to just today in the AFP article “‘Do it for our children,’ parents plead at UN climate meet” on 5 Dec 2019, where we were informed as follows as to just how hysterical people like this Ko Barrett have made the public at large with their own reckless and hysterical statements about a “CLIMATE CRISIS, ” to wit:
Parents from around the globe Thursday said governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid must beat back the threat of global warming to “give our children the future that they deserve”.
end quotes
Beat back the threat of global warming?
Seriously, people, exactly how is that to be done, given that it is the earth that is in charge of what its climate is going to be at any given time and place, and not human beings?
That these people actually are asking these governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” shows just how deluded they are about reality, and that is thanks to HYSTERIA MONGERS like NOAA’s Ko Barret, and this IPCC climate crisis crowd.
Staying with that AFP article, we have further, as follows:
“Our children are being handed a broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown,” they said in an open declaration from 222 associations in 27 countries.
end quotes
A broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown?
What is “climate chaos?”
And where on earth is it that they getting that term from, besides irresponsible hysteria-mongerers like NOAA’s Ko Barrett, because there is no such scientific term as “climate chaos,” which takes us back to the AFP story on just how hysterical NOAA’s Ko Barrett has made people with her irresponsible and reckless blather about a “climate crisis,” to wit:
“At our current rate of emissions, we are dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” the declaration said.
“We are at a turning point in the story of our species, and you, the delegates of this influential UN climate summit, have an opportunity to choose what happens next.”
end quotes
So, people, there you are seeing in real time the results of this propaganda campaign based on contrived science that NOAA and the IPCC are using to make people so crazy with fear so they cannot think straight and thus are easily led down the garden path by a ring in their nose, with that crazy talk about us being “dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” and “We are at a turning point in the story of our species.”
Keep repeating a lie over and over and over, as this IPCC crowd and Ko Barrett have been doing, and as this AFP article clearly shows, you can get the unwitting masses to think anything you want them to think, like the world is going to end and civilization, which was never raveled too tight to begin with, is going to unravel unless they surrender their futures and the futures of their grandchildren to this pack of fools meeting right now in Madrid who can’t even agree on what day it is, and Ko Barrett and the IPCC.
Closing out on Ko Barrett, since she is in many ways the star of this climate crisis show now on-going in Madrid, where of course, little Greta Thunberg and her crowd and marching and shrieking and chanting in the streets and creating clouds of toxic and noxious carbon dioxide each time they exhale, on a site called ZoomInfo, she has posted for herself a Business Profile, where we learn the following about what NOAA considers to be her qualifications to head up NOAA’s so-called “research” efforts despite only possessing a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, which is a liberal arts survey program, to wit:
Ko Barrett leads the Global Climate Change Team for the US Agency for International Development .
She manages climate-related activities in more than 40 countries and regions around the world that seek to promote sustainable development, while minimizing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate change.
Ms. Barrett has held this position for five years.
Prior to working at USAID , she lived overseas for seven years, working on environment policy issues in Egypt and Ukraine.
end quotes
So, how does that then qualify her to be what is in essence NOAA’s top scientist in charge of what research is done, or not done?
A question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204435
Paul Plante says:
And let us stay with NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Programs & Administration Ko Barrett for the moment as one of the key people and prime movers behind this irresponsible and reckless HYSTERIA-MONGERING in the media about a contrived “CLIMATE CRISIS” that is literally making people crazy and berserk with fear, as we were witness to just today in the AFP article “‘Do it for our children,’ parents plead at UN climate meet” on 5 Dec 2019, where we were informed as follows as to just how hysterical people like this Ko Barrett have made the public at large with their own reckless and hysterical statements about a “CLIMATE CRISIS, ” to wit:
Parents from around the globe Thursday said governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid must beat back the threat of global warming to “give our children the future that they deserve”.
end quotes
Beat back the threat of global warming?
Seriously, people, exactly how is that to be done, given that it is the earth that is in charge of what its climate is going to be at any given time and place, and not human beings?
That these people actually are asking these governments locked in negotiations at UN talks in Madrid to “beat back the threat of global warming” to “give our children the future that they deserve,” shows just how deluded they are about reality, and that is thanks to HYSTERIA MONGERS like NOAA’s Ko Barret, and this IPCC climate crisis crowd.
Staying with that AFP article, we have further, as follows:
“Our children are being handed a broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown,” they said in an open declaration from 222 associations in 27 countries.
end quotes
A broken world on the verge of climate chaos and ecological breakdown?
What is “climate chaos?”
And where on earth is it that they getting that term from, besides irresponsible hysteria-mongerers like NOAA’s Ko Barrett, because there is no such scientific term as “climate chaos,” which takes us back to the AFP story on just how hysterical NOAA’s Ko Barrett has made people with her irresponsible and reckless blather about a “climate crisis,” to wit:
“At our current rate of emissions, we are dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” the declaration said.
“We are at a turning point in the story of our species, and you, the delegates of this influential UN climate summit, have an opportunity to choose what happens next.”
end quotes
So, people, there you are seeing in real time the results of this propaganda campaign based on contrived science that NOAA and the IPCC are using to make people so crazy with fear so they cannot think straight and thus are easily led down the garden path by a ring in their nose, with that crazy talk about us being “dangerously close to reaching tipping points which could unravel human civilisation within our own and our children’s lifetimes,” and “We are at a turning point in the story of our species.”
Keep repeating a lie over and over and over, as this IPCC crowd and Ko Barrett have been doing, and as this AFP article clearly shows, you can get the unwitting masses to think anything you want them to think, like the world is going to end and civilization, which was never raveled too tight to begin with, is going to unravel unless they surrender their futures and the futures of their grandchildren to this pack of fools meeting right now in Madrid who can’t even agree on what day it is, and Ko Barrett and the IPCC.
Closing out on Ko Barrett, since she is in many ways the star of this climate crisis show now on-going in Madrid, where of course, little Greta Thunberg and her crowd and marching and shrieking and chanting in the streets and creating clouds of toxic and noxious carbon dioxide each time they exhale, on a site called ZoomInfo, she has posted for herself a Business Profile, where we learn the following about what NOAA considers to be her qualifications to head up NOAA’s so-called “research” efforts despite only possessing a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, which is a liberal arts survey program, to wit:
Ko Barrett leads the Global Climate Change Team for the US Agency for International Development .
She manages climate-related activities in more than 40 countries and regions around the world that seek to promote sustainable development, while minimizing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate change.
Ms. Barrett has held this position for five years.
Prior to working at USAID , she lived overseas for seven years, working on environment policy issues in Egypt and Ukraine.
end quotes
So, how does that then qualify her to be what is in essence NOAA’s top scientist in charge of what research is done, or not done?
A question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-204435