Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 5, 2019 at 6:48 pm

Paul Plante says :

Publius Americanus, Sorin, was the set of dudes who wrote what are now called collectively “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS,” originally a set of political essays addressed specifically to the People of the State of New York wherein was explained to us in minute detail what the federal government in this country, the United States of America, and not some Commie country in Europe, or crowd of groveling forelock-tuggers bowing and scraping to nobility like the socialist Swedes, was to be, and more importantly, was not to be, and why that all was to be, giving us the history leading up to the moment of those essays and thus, their purpose, which was to educate, and what the states were to be, and what they were not to be, and what the president was supposed to be, and not, along with the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the federal courts so when somebody down the road, some seedy party apparatchik came along and tried to hand us some BULL****, we AMERICANS would know the difference, and we would then keep the BALANCE by standing up to whichever corner of the federal government the BULL**** was coming from.

And there is where we Americans are today – faced with a torrent of BULL**** in the name of “science” from people in Europe we do not know and are being denied the right to question.

As Publius Americanus (“America’s watchdog, in the sense of Cuculain in Ireland) makes incandescently clear, to an American, that imposition of foreign “science” on us by FIAT is the definition of TYRANNY, and by allowing that foreign “science” to come into this country without question or challenge at the federal congressional level so that without challenge by We, the American people in a hearing where we have the right to question as witnesses the top scientists who produced this IPP report, this foreign report is now the official basis and thus, only allowable basis, which in turn affects our national public policy dialogue here in the United States of America where it is we who are the citizens, not the scientists over there in France trying to impose this report on us as a sort of rule of law, just as it is doing in here with yourself and the venerable and indomitable and most often just dead wrong but feisty about it nonetheless tokenny treating the IPP report as the word of an infallible oracle or even God him or herself, while we Americans treat it as the science-defying hogwash that it is, which unchallenged hogwash is already having an impact on our 2020 presidential election by this foreign interference which forms a plank of the Democrat presidential platform, and thus, it impacts directly on our economic future as a people and as a nation, which is despotism, plain and simple, and the only newspaper worthy of the name that has the guts to stand up and put out a public challenge to this foreign scientific bull**** that defies reason and requires suspension of disbelief to believe is the Cape Charles Mirror, for which it should be awarded an ALTERNATE NOBEL PRIZE, and I would like you Sorin, to use whatever considerable influence you have with the Cape Charles Town Board and Congresswoman Luria to get that ball rolling, pronto.

And thank you from a grateful nation for that, and welcome to America where we don’t suck eggs because some French scientist told us we had to!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-184099

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 6, 2019 at 5:43 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, people, recapping here, IF the aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, do we, the American people have that “true and accurate knowledge” in the IPPC report young Swedish citizen Greta Thunberg presented to our United States Congress on 18 September 2019 when the 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former Democrat President Barack Obama to discuss Democrat political strategy leading up to the 2020 presidential elections here in America that Obama is trying to influence using little Greta as a political tool, where Greta told Congress, even though she is not an American citizen, that she didn’t have any prepared remarks but instead, she was attaching as her testimony (where and how she got the right as a foreign citizen to have an audience before our Congress on the subject of climate change remains unclear as of this moment, but it is a sure thing that somewhere, money changed hands to secure the privilege) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she said.

“And I want you to unite behind the science.”

“And then I want you to take real action.”

end quotes

“Unite behind the science!”

My, but that has a nice ring to it, does it not?

And how patriotic it sounds.

But seriously, people, what “science” is it that we are supposed to be uniting behind, given that the aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works and science itself is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them?

And what real action is this 16-year old Swedish citizen demanding of our Congress, as if she were their queen, and they were her jarls and thegns?

Consider for the moment the MARKETWATCH article “Students around the world skip class to organize climate change protests” by Associated Press published Mar. 15, 2019, to wit:

In 2015, world leaders agreed in Paris to a goal of keeping the Earth’s global temperature rise by the end of the century well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

end quotes

Can anyone possibly be missing the implications of what is being stated there, which is as follows:

In 2015, world leaders agreed in Paris that they now collectively have the power over the earth and its weather to keep the Earth’s global temperature rise by the end of the century, which is some eighty (80) years in the future, well below 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Can you imagine it, people?

Are these world leaders who can now control the temperature of the earth 80 years into the future great shamans?

Are they wizards?

Certainly whatever they are, with that claim, they are claiming supernatural powers which are kind of scary, when you think about it, world leaders of uncertain mental capacity having such control over our lives as they would if they could truly control earth’s weather 80 years out into the future.

What a tool for extortion that would be, would it not?

If the people of America will not come to heel and lick the boots of its masters over in Paris, they are going to turn off our weather, and what a lesson that will teach us, alright, and let us face it, that is what we deserve for being independent as opposed to a member of the one-world government.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-184329

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 7, 2019 at 6:18 pm

Paul Plante says :

Pube, dude, let me first say that I appreciate all the effort you dudes put into the Federalist Papers, but you know what?

It was all in vain, because what you said we were supposed to have, we don’t, and everything you said we wouldn’t have is what we do have, which is why we are having a serious conversation in here about CNN (the Cuomo News Network) and the field of Democratic Candidates proving once again that we are indeed living in clown world.

We weren’t supposed to have clown world according to the Federalist Papers, and here we find ourselves surrounded on all sides by it, as was evidenced by the fact that on CNN, for seven interminable hours, the brainy individuals who comprise the Democrats presidential contenders (Pray for the nation, people) engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world with the big takeaways being to stop eating meat and we all must drive electric cars.

And that takes us to totalitarianism, which label I don’t think can be rightfully pinned on Sorin, who has actually experienced Communism and socialism to the point that he like us would rather be free.

For a glimpse at the direction totalitarianism is going to come from, as if we did not already know, we need go no further than a PRESS RELEASE from the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania entitled “Governor Wolf Takes Executive Action to Combat Climate Change, Carbon Emissions” on October 03, 2019, as follows:

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf today took executive action instructing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a market-based collaboration among nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change while generating economic growth.

“Climate change is the most critical environmental threat confronting the world, and power generation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions,” said Governor Wolf.

“Given the urgency of the climate crisis facing Pennsylvania and the entire planet, the commonwealth must continue to take concrete, economically sound and immediate steps to reduce emissions.”

“Joining RGGI will give us that opportunity to better protect the health and safety of our citizens.”

end quotes

Are executive orders a form of tyranny here in the United State of America as in this case where the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania appears to be setting himself up as a dictator?

The Democrat press release then continues as follows:

“This initiative represents a unique opportunity for Pennsylvania to become a leader in combatting climate change and grow our economy by partnering with neighboring states,” said Patrick McDonnell, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection.

Pennsylvania exports nearly a third of the electricity it produces, and the cost of RGGI compliance for exported electricity will be paid by electric customers in the states where that electricity is ultimately used.

end quotes

Or is it more a case of where Pennsylvania is using this climate change hysteria being generated by AOC and little Greta to gouge people and make some extra money off the suckers?

And then we get over to the professional shuck-and-jive that you would expect from a Democrat politician, to wit:

“The conversation we’ve begun over the past year needs to continue if we are going to craft regulations that fit Pennsylvania’s unique energy mix, while making sure that the transition to a cleaner energy mix doesn’t leave behind workers and communities our state has relied on for decades to produce its power,” said Gov. Wolf.

end quotes

And that conversation, which is really going on in here, is going to be strung out and milked for political benefits for the Democrats as long as they can, because it is a good issue that they can use to gain the political power they need in order to be able to tap the federal treasury for trillions of dollars that will keep them in power forever.

And then we get to the politics of it all, to wit:

“And it will take buy in from the legislature to ensure we’re protecting Pennsylvanians from the increasing effects of the climate crisis.”

end quotes

Ah, yes, the “climate crisis,” but what exactly is it?

The long answer as well as the short answer is NOBODY KNOWS, and the use of the term “climate crisis” is alarmism and sensationalism for partisan political gain.

To talk about ice melting at an alarming rate is sensationalism and alarmism because nobody living on earth right now, and this includes all the climate scientists, and AOC and little Greta with her huge cloud of toxic CO2 following her around on her “LITTLE GRETA IS JUST THE GREATEST” world tour, and all the Democrats and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, know what the ice is supposed to be doing, given that Antarctica used to be ice-free until about 34 million years ago, so why couldn’t the earth on its own make it ice-free again today?

Because it will discommode some humans who wanted to own the ocean beaches and keep them all for themselves?

As to what the scientists actually do know, we know that the earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago, so that all that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island, and those are still melting because in an interglacial, that is precisely what they do – they melt.

And Democrat Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania is going to use his executive powers as governor of Pennsylvania to make those melting glaciers stop melting, because it is upsetting Greta Thunberg, the little princess from socialist Sweden who wants us all to panic so we can know what it is like for her to be afraid of the natural processes of the earth we all live on, although Greta and Tom Wolf seem to think it is theirs instead, so they can dictate terms to us we have to live by, without a whimper of protest on our part, and that is totalitarianism.

Getting back to the Wolf Press Release:

The scientific consensus is the planet is experiencing climate change in real time, and the impacts are felt everywhere.

end quotes

Which is a total horse**** statement equivalent to gibberish because the only time climate change can occur in is real time, there is no other time that it can occur in, and since we have known for over a hundred years that the planet is experiencing climate change in real time, of course that is the scientific consensus, because it can’t be otherwise, or the scientists would look pretty stupid trying to argue against school kids who know better that the earth’s climate is stuck frozen in one place, never to change again, which is what Democrats like this Tom Wolf want us to believe, that they have the power to literally stop time itself and make the climate on earth be just right for everybody, as it should be in a democracy, if only we would give them the political power and money to accomplish that goal.

As to how long Pennsylvania has known that the planet was experiencing climate change in real time, we have as follows from the Wolf Press Release, to wit:

In 2015, the Pennsylvania Climate Impacts Assessment Update found that Pennsylvania has undergone a long-term warming over the prior 110 years, and that current warming trends are expected to increase at an accelerated rate with average temperatures projected to increase an additional 5.4 degrees by 2050.

Average annual precipitation has also increased by approximately 10 percent over the past 100 years and, by 2050, is expected to increase by an additional 8 percent.

end quotes

And that of course is a continuation of the melting trend that began some 10,000 years ago, and for all we know right now, will continue far into our future until it swings back the other way and the earth again experiences another ice age, which brings us back to the Wolf Press Release one more time as follows, to wit:

Last year was the wettest year on record in the commonwealth, and these increases in rainfall resulted in extreme weather events and flooding throughout the state costing residents an estimated $144 million in reported damages, and at least $125 million in state-maintained road and bridges damage throughout the state

“We are seeing the immediate and devastating impact of climate change right here in Pennsylvania, with more intense rain storms leading to flooding occurring outside flood zones, and dry conditions that can increase the threat of fire in our wooded areas,” said Randy Padfield, director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.

end quotes

All as was predicted long ago.

And I wonder, still I wonder, can Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Wolf really stop the rain?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-184670

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 7, 2019 at 9:26 pm

Paul Plante says :

Ah, yes, totalitarianism and the sensationalist and alarmist media reporting required to make it happen as we can see from this article in the Guardian entitled “US to stage its largest ever climate strike: ‘Somebody must sound the alarm'” by Oliver Milman in New York on 20 September 2019, as follows:

The US is set to stage its largest ever day of protest over the climate crisis, with tens of thousands of students joined by adults in abandoning schools and workplaces for a wave of strikes across the country.

end quotes

Now, here we have a real good example of the “doom-and-gloom” hysteria-mongering by the media to make people scared, and therefore, off-balance, which makes them all the more readily manipulated, and especially the children who are unable to think for themselves when confronted with the term “CLIMATE CRISIS,” which has the children thinking that life on earth is about to end and unless we cede power to the Democrats, we are all doomed.

But what is the “CLIMATE CRISIS?”

And the answer is – nobody, starting with the consensus, really knows.

Getting back to the hysteria-mongering of the Guardian, we have:

The young strikers’ totemic figure, the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, will take part in the New York walkout and will speak to massed protesters in Manhattan.

Authorities in New York City have announced that its student population of 1.1 million is able to skip school in order to attend the strikes.

end quotes

New York City, of course, is PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT territory, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the authorities in New York City would be purposefully and shamefully exploiting these children for partisan political gain.

Getting back to the Guardian:

Hundreds of doctors have written medical notes to excuse students from their classes due to the threat posed by the climate crisis.

end quotes

What can anyone say to that other than incredible, which takes us back to the Guardian, as follows:

“This is going to be the largest mobilization for climate action in history,” said Alexandria Villaseñor, a 14-year-old who has been protesting outside the UN headquarters over climate every Friday since December.

“World leaders can either listen now or listen later because our voice is only going to get louder as the climate crisis gets more urgent.”

“Adults need to step up and support us.”

“Civil disobedience breaks the system and once it’s broken it’s an amazing opportunity to make things better.”

end quotes

That is what those doctors and the New York City authorities are promoting – civil disobedience which plays right into the hands of the Democrats.

“BREAK THE SYSTEM, AND WE DEMOCRATS WILL LEAD YOU INTO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD,” as we can see from the following in that Guardian article, to wit:

“We are excited to disrupt business as usual, to demand a Green New Deal,” Audrey Maurine Xin Lin, an 18-year-old organizer in Boston, in reference to the resolution put forward by progressive Democrats to enact a second world war-style economic mobilization to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.

end quotes

Yes, we need to go on a war footing in this “WAR AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE” as we did in WWII, with our war economy being overseen by war councils comprised of Democrats as a supreme body to subsume military and civilian organizations and to direct the vast war economy.

To actually be able to win this war to make the climate stop changing, we need to re-create a number of preparedness agencies including an Office for Emergency Management headed up by either AOC, or more properly, since she is the most prepared, Greta Thunberg, who can come in and hit the ground running as we shift over to a full war-time economy as we do battle with the earth’s climate, itself.

And of course, we would also then need a National Defense Advisory Commission; an Office of Production Management; and a Supply Priorities Allocation Board.

We would also need a War Production Board, placed under the direction of the Democrats and Greta Thunberg,

And finally, we need an Office of War Mobilization if we are going to make a serious effort as a nation and as a people to actually lick climate change for once and for all, so Greta doesn’t have to feel fear each day, and we don’t have to panic.

And all it takes to make all that happen, which would give the Democrats total control over every aspect of our lives is for enough people to be made afraid.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-184715

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:40 p

Watts Up With That? - The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

"A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum"

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

July 31, 2016

There is frustration and reward when an article appears on the same topic of an article you are completing – in this case the Holocene.

Such was the case this week with Andy May’s article “A Review of temperature reconstructions.”

Andy points out the basic problems of reconstruction using proxy data for the most recent half of the Holocene – an issue central to historical climate and climate change studies.

His paper did not alter my paper except as it reinforces some arguments.

This article examines the entire Holocene and illustrates the history that influenced the studies.

There are two distinct parts to the studies, the pre and post Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The former is a genuine scientific struggle with issues of terminology and reconstruction, and the latter a scientific struggle to impose a political perspective regardless of the evidence.

Because of the damage done to climatology by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), both parts require explanation.

The title of this article lists all the names given to a single geologic period.

It reflects the problem of inconsistent terminology in the early days of historic climate reconstruction.

The names were a result of regional studies reflecting the lack of coordination in a pre-global village world.

They were attempts to improve and advance scientific knowledge and understanding, but only created confusion because of failure to agree on the start and end points and duration of the period.

The concept of relative homogeneity is critical to determine if a climatic change was regional, hemispheric or global.

You cannot achieve accurate analysis if the sequence of events is unknown or incorrect – a point noted in May’s article.

Even a cursory examination of the Holocene shows why the period is problematic for promoters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

As Steve McIntyre pointed out, the problems began when skeptics noted that the temperature for most of the Holocene contradicted their claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever.

I know they never used the term ‘ever’, rather, it was left unsaid but implied in the message to the public and not contradicted when used by the media.

McIntyre wrote:

“The Team has taken a preditable (sic) position on the Holocene Optimum: that it’s a regional and restricted event."

It was predictable because it was the same argument they used for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

Prove an event was regional, and you essentially eliminate the Sun as a mechanism of change – an issue central to the AGW CO2 argument.

The restriction included the claim that only summer temperatures were warmer.

Even if true, it is not possible to say based on proxy records with 40 to 70-year smoothing averages applied.

Interestingly, the IPCC clung to this “Team” view as recently as AR4 (2007).

The temperature evolution over the Holocene has been established for many different regions, often with centennial-resolution proxy records more sensitive to specific seasons.

Of course, this was before Climategate and the leaked emails that destroyed the Team’s credibility.

The problem of terminology impacted global reconstruction when attempts were made to synchronize glacial/interglacial events in Europe and North America.

European glacial events were labelled in 1909 by Albrecht Penck (1858-1945) and Eduard Bruckner (1862-1927) from the oldest to the most recent, the Gunz, Mindel, Riss, and Wurm.

In North America, led by the work of Thomas Chamberlin (1843-1928) and Frank Leverett (1859-1943) the sequence was the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsin.

This helped define what happened within the Pleistocene but didn’t help in defining the end and beginning of the following period or synchronicity.

The term Holocene means most recent and was first suggested by Geologist Charles Lyell whose work influenced Darwin.

He anticipated the modern environmental activists because he suggested it marked the human era.

The problem is human history covers a few million years, and there is no evidence the Pleistocene is ended.

Although Lyell’s claim was unjustified, the idea continues today as some call the Holocene The Age of Man.

Regardless, there is no doubt we are in an interglacial but is it just that, and attempts to define shorter periods only part of the political game of blaming humans for all change?

The game continues with the proposal to name the most recent portion of the Holocene the Anthropocene.

The definition underscores the politicization of science.

However, it requires reassessment because what occurred during the period contradicts the claims for the Anthropocene defined as.

“Relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.”

This is false if we accept the IPCC conclusion, the human influence on climate is discernible only after 1950.


Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:40 p

Watts Up With That? - The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

"A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum"
, continued ...

Correlating Events

Another book I consider significant in the attempts to match the various records was Climate, Man, and History by Robert Claiborne published in 1970.

It spoke to the contradictory dates used in different disciplines.

He wanted to write a doctoral thesis on the conflicting dates and incompatibility of events used by glaciologists and anthropologists, but the idea was rejected.

As a result, he quit university, the supposed bastion of innovative thought, and wrote the book.

He referred to the closed mind of academia in the first sentence:

““This book will probably annoy quite a number of scientists.”

Naturally, it was immediately attacked because it questioned the prevailing wisdom and worse, crossed the boundary between science and arts.

The following comment illustrates the confused reaction by obliquely acknowledging the problem but then equally obliquely questioning Claiborne:

“Claiborne’s caveat in the preface to this thoroughgoing study of climate and culture is that he’s going to venture some opinions of his own, attack others’, and, in general, try to dispel the fog that has enveloped many scientific studies of man in nature."

"He does this somewhat modestly at the beginning, coping with the complex, often conflicting theories on the causes, conditions, and timing of the last ice ages, and then increasingly with a more idiosyncratic style and sharper tongue."

There are parallels between Claiborne’s experiences and the claims made about the weather, climate, and history today.

The official story of weather and climate promulgated by governments through the IPCC and environmentalists’ state that current weather and climate are anomalous and exhibiting more extreme conditions than ever before.

The message is amplified and further distorted by a complicit and duplicitous media.

Recently, a UK Daily Mail headline read:

“Sizzling UK records hottest day ever.”

The story did not qualify the word “ever” by saying it was the record within the modern span of thermometer measurements.

The headline is what stays with the uninformed.

Put the claim in the larger perspective of the Holocene and a completely different picture emerges about the official claims.

They are creating the Anthropocene to isolate it from the Holocene because it gives the lie to the entire anthropogenic global warming deception.

Judith Curry provided an interesting discussion about the lack of evidence for the Anthropocene, especially its mythical threat to humanity.

Weather and climate conditions through the Anthropocene are normal; that is, they are well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations.

Despite official and media claims to the contrary, there are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather.

The climate is changing just as it always has and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal.

Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe.

The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.


Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:40 p

Watts Up With That? - The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

"A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum"
, concluded ...

What The Public Needs To Know

The following is not new to skeptics but identifies issues the public need to know to understand the AGW deception.

Figure 1 shows one reconstruction of the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere derived from Greenland ice cores.

It provides a brief context to show the wider natural range of temperature over the last 10,000 years.

It shows the meaningless identification of the Anthropocene identified by the small red bar.

The accuracy of the climate record is critical for determining underlying mechanisms.

It is critical if you want to identify specific periods but is still difficult because of determining points of starting and ending.

Figure 1 appears to show a clear start of the Holocene with a dramatic warming around 10,500 years ago, but many place the onset at 11,700 years ago.

Figure 2 shows why it is not clear cut.

Is the Younger Dryas part of the Holocene?

Is the extent of a geologic period determined by the major causative mechanism or some arbitrary temperature threshold?

Search for an explanation of the Younger Dryas generated many speculative papers.

There is an entire journal The Holocene devoted to the period.

The Younger Dryas is the focus of intense research, but also great speculation about the causative mechanism.

Other important points from Figures 1, 2 and 3 expose the lies and distortions about the last 120 years being anomalous include:

• Current temperatures are proclaimed as the warmest on record.

In fact, the world was warmer than today for 97 percent of the last 10,000 years.

• The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) just 1000 years ago was 2°C warmer than today.

The public is told that a similar warming will be catastrophic.

• The Minoan warm period approximately 3500 years ago was 4°C warmer than today.

• We are told the amount and rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years is abnormal.

Compare the slope with any of the previous increases in Figure 2.

Figure 3 shows the CO2 trend over the Holocene.

CO2 rose as temperature declined over the last 8000 years.

The Holocene is also problematic for AGW proponents because the major causative mechanism appears to be the changing precession, one of the Milankovitch Effect (ME) trilogy along with orbital eccentricity and axial tilt.

A recent article at WUWT cites from Bender’s book Paleoclimate:

“The orientation of Earth’s spin axis has changed over the past 10 Kyr so that northern summers now occur when Earth is farthest from the sun, whereas at 10 Ka [10,000 BP] they occurred when Earth was closest to the sun."

"Northern summertime insolation reached a maximum at about 10 Ka and has declined to the present, when it is near the minimum.”

The IPCC AR4 Physical Science Basis FAQ section provides the only reference to the ME.

This includes the remarkable observation that:

These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes.

The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural.

True, but it was the same IPCC report that said natural changes became insignificant after 1950.

They ‘proved’ this by eliminating most natural changes from their reports and their computer models.

The IPCC is only comfortable discussing ME on time scales greater than the Holocene. AR5 says,

There is high confidence that orbital forcing is the primary external driver of glacial cycles (Kawamura et al,. 2007; Cheng et al., 2009; Lisiecki, 2010; Huybers, 2011).

But they couldn’t leave that comment unqualified, so they added:

However, atmospheric CO2 content plays an important internal feedback role.

There is no reference to the ME in the AR5 FAQ section or the Glossary of AR4 or AR5.

This supports the information that it is not included in the IPCC computer models.

The justification for exclusion is the time scale, but even in the 120 years of the Anthropocene, the impact is at least marginally significant relative to CO2 changes.

The bigger problem is the inability to validate the models by recreating previous conditions without including the ME.

The Holocene is an interesting warm period that many believe marks the end of the last ice advance of the Pleistocene.

It fascinated early scientific attempts to understand the events and mechanisms in the early days of climate reconstructions, which were complicated by a lack of standardized terminologies and central collections of data.

For example, I recall long discussions about the need for centralized data banks on tree rings.

The Holocene became ignored or distorted after the advent of AGW and the IPCC because the evidence of its existence contradicted most of their claims.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/ ... c-optimum/


Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says :

This whole IPCC thing has descended into and become nothing more than a big, steaming heap of political horse****, plain and simple.

Supposedly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

But that is bull****, because the IPCC is not objective, period.

It is political.

According to the propaganda, 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, and the alleged objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”

And there is the rub which has led to this Climate-gate kerfuffle and from there down to the hysteria of our times today, where we have scared children running around thinking the world is now going to end before they have a chance to grow up, which is hysteria-mongering for political purposes, not “science,” as if that word had any rational meaning, any more, because all the scientists in the world have no means of “stabilizing” the concentrations of any gases in the atmosphere, as if, like the Wizard of Oz, the most powerful wizard in all the land, they could literally make time stand still and have the earth’s climate obey them as if a spaniel that comes to heel on command.

One major flaw in the system, which is intentional, or by design, given the political nature of the lash-up, is that the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, but rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

So, the IPCC fishes, which is not scientific research.

With respect to the political nature of the IPCC, its reports contain a “Summary for Policymakers”, which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments, which typically involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

So, science as lawyers say science should be, which is crap science, or horse**** science, or bizarre science, not real science by any stretch of the imagination.

With regard to how the IPCC came into being, the political United States Environmental Protection Agency and even more political U.S. State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO.

Thus, the U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments.

In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organization, which means it is neither fish nor fowl, and it is designed such that politics controls what the outcome of science is going to be, which is known as the “Dame Snow Jeopardy,” where the conclusion to be supported politically is determined beforehand, and then data that doesn’t support the preferred conclusion is rejected out of hand.

And yes, people, that is very common where politics and “science” meet, because the whip hand and the purse are held by the political side of that equation – if you are a scientist who knows better, i.e. is compliant, then when told to keep your ******* mouth shut about something, you do so, and by way of reward, you get to keep your job and paycheck, as opposed to getting fired, having your career and life destroyed, and maybe having your teeth kicked down your throat, to boot.

So, yes, climate-gate.

And really, who is surprised?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-189618

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says:

This whole “climate-gate” story is so bizarre that it is hard to believe that it could have even happened in a world that alleges to be sane and rational, given who or what the CRU started out to be, and who its founder was.

According to its own published history, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

The contribution of the Founding Director, Professor Hubert H. Lamb, cannot be overstated.

end quotes

There is what makes this “climate-gate” so bizarre, because Hubert H. Lamb is the author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, which has as its introduction as follows:

We live in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to climatic shocks— affecting agriculture and industry, government and international trade, not to mention human health and happiness.

Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists warning of dire perils that could result from upsets of the climatic regime.

In this internationally acclaimed book, Hubert Lamb explores what we know about climate, how the past record of climate can be reconstructed, the causes of climatic variation, and its impact on human affairs now and in the historical and prehistoric past.

This second edition incorporates important new material on: recent advances in weather forecasting, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution, and population growth.

Providing a valuable introduction to the problems and results of the most recent research activity, this book extends our understanding of the interactions between climate and history, and discusses implications for future climatic fluctuations and forecasting.

H.H.Lamb is Emeritus Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences and was the Founder and first Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

end quotes

In the Preface to the Second Edition, written by the author in December of 1994, he states thusly:

Since this book was published in 1982 its subject has been continually in the limelight and research has been active.

Also, as is by no means unusual, further noteworthy weather events have been in the news.

Some additional reports, remarks and comments have therefore become desirable, yet the main body of past historical work is still not well known.

It has therefore been decided to issue this revised text which incorporates notices of much new, important, material, thus making our knowledge of the past — particularly the interactions between climate and history — more accessible and providing a handy introduction to some of the problems and results of ongoing research.

Some of the climatic problems affecting humanity arise perhaps more fundamentally from the pressures of the burgeoning human population of the world than from climate.

Anxieties about the possibility of drastic warming of world climates resulting from the continual build-up of carbon dioxide (and other intrusions) in the atmosphere due to human activities have been forced upon the notice of politicians and industrial managements.

In these years there has also been a succession of very great volcanic eruptions that have loaded the atmosphere with debris and, perhaps more importantly, with gases and vapours that veil the sun’s radiation and may be interrupting or even reversing the tendencies towards warming of world climates.

There have been very notable advances in these years in weather forecasting by mathematical models, enormously improving the forecasting for up to five to seven days ahead.

But much of the gain is jeopardized by modern tendencies to use sloppy and inappropriate language in forecasts.

Thus, it is now fashionable to speak of ‘best temperatures’ in forecasts rather than ‘highest’ or ‘lowest’ whichever may really be best for the activities in prospect.

And forecasters in southern England seem to like to assume that summer temperatures in England are much the same as in the Mediterranean, or if they are not, they should be and it is a bad year.

The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public, after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant.

But it is easy to notice the common assumption that Man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us.

It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance.

Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.

end quotes

And instead, what we have gotten from his successors at the CRU, and the media, which constantly demonstrates its own willful ignorance of that which it reports on, especially this “carbon pollution” and the “climate crisis,” which is not a crisis, at all, is a steaming heap of pig **** for political, not scientific reasons.

Getting back to the CRU published history:

Hubert Lamb’s determination and vision can only be appreciated in the context of the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant on timescales that are of relevance to humanity and its social and economic systems.

The weather changed from day-to-day, from week-to-week, and season-to-season.

There was interannual variability, but over years to centuries (the perceived argument went) a constancy was reliably evident.

It is now recognised that the climate is not constant, but changes on all timescales – years to millennia, as well as the climatic changes on longer (e.g. ice age) timescales that had become accepted in the late 19th century.

end quotes

And there is where the fistfight begins that led to the “climate-gate” kerfuffle, because the present-day argument requires that the climate be unchanging, unless changed by humans, which is bunkum and twaddle, but necessary, as we see from the following from that same history:

Hubert Lamb retired as Director in 1978.

He was succeeded by Tom Wigley (to 1993), Trevor Davies (1993-1998), Jean Palutikof and Phil Jones (jointly from 1998 to 2004) and Phil Jones (to the present).

Each has brought their own specialities to bear in guiding CRU through what have mostly been good times as far as successful research is concerned, but occasionally through periods of fallow funding, and sometimes very difficult periods.

end quotes

Scroll back to “fallow funding,” and there is the key to the present day disputes about CO2, as again we see from the CRU History, to wit:

Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary was the Director.

Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work.

end quotes

Which means scientists have to pander for money, people.

Getting back to that history, which is quite relevant to this CO2 discussion today, we have:

The early priority of CRU was set against the backdrop of there having been little investigation before the 1960s of past climatic changes and variability, except by geologists and botanists, although there was an excess of theories.

end quotes

Yes, people, an excess of theories, which translates as a lot of competition for that pool of “soft money,” which means scientists have to find out who has the most money to give out to support whatever their pet theory is, which takes us back to pandering.

Getting back to the history:

The objective of CRU, therefore, was “to establish the past record of climate over as much of the world as possible, as far back in time as was feasible, and in enough detail to recognise and establish the basic processes, interactions, and evolutions in the Earth’s fluid envelopes and those involving the Earth’s crust and its vegetation cover”.

The early efforts towards this objective were the interpretation of documentary historical records.

This was painstaking and challenging work and progressed through the 1970s.

end quotes

And what we do not find as a result of that painstaking and challenging work is any definitive evidence that carbon dioxide is doing what the “CARBON CULT” true-believer scientists say carbon dioxide is doing.

To believe the “CARBON CULT” dudes today from this CRU, it becomes necessary to take not only Lamb’s book, but all the books that an engineer uses to learn “science,” and toss them in the **** can, because the CO2 theory cannot stand otherwise, as it is a negation of science.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190019

Site Admin
Posts: 30602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, yes, people, the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam,” where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value.

As is the case here with this Democrat “climate crisis,” which is a HYPE TERM not supported by actual science, scams traditionally reside in confidence tricks, where an individual would misrepresent themselves as someone with skill or authority, i.e. a lawyer or politician posing as a climate scientist, which takes us back to this IPCC, and through the IPCC, back to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992 with an objective to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

When we read that, we must needs keep in mind that water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere.

And of importance to this discussion, “UNFCCC” is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn, Germany.

The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

And again of importance to this discussion, Article 3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that developed country Parties should “take the lead” in addressing climate change.

As to that statement, the United States would be considered a “developed country party,” so the burden of “taking the lead” in addressing climate change would fall to us, which takes us back around to the Democrat “climate crisis scam,” which is intended to make us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, which takes us to Article 4(7) of that convention, as follows:

The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

end quotes

Focus in on that last sentence there, people: “will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

Social development is an overriding priority of developing country parties, so that we, the American people have to provide them with financial resources and the transfer of technology to make that possible?

And, besides nothing, what does that have to do with the alleged goal of “preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system?”

And there is a look at what the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam” is really all about, social engineering, where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value, which thought takes us to an article in the New York Times entitled “Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax” by Coral Davenport and Trip Gabriel on 5 September 2019, as follows:

WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates promised unprecedented new action on climate change on Wednesday night in the first prime-time televised forum devoted to the issue in a presidential campaign, vowing to undo the Trump administration’s environmental policies, spend trillions of dollars to promote renewable energy and force companies to pay new taxes or fees.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people, spend TRILLIONS and FORCE companies to pay taxes or fees, which in turn will filter down to us, and here, let me clarify that I am over 70 and living on a fixed low income, so these Democrat taxes will have an outsized impact on people like myself, as well as other low income Americans, this so we can engage in social engineering in poor countries around the world with our tax dollars.

Getting back to that NYT article:

In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition.

Around the country and the world, opponents have attacked it as an “energy tax” that could raise fuel costs, and it has been considered politically toxic in Washington for nearly a decade.

end quotes

I should say that the Democrats are totally insensitive to the impact these taxes are going to have on the poor folks in this country who won’t be able to run out and buy themselves a new Tesla, which again takes us back to the NYT:

In addition to proposing $3 trillion in spending on environmental initiatives, Ms. Warren also responded “Yes!” when asked by a moderator, Chris Cuomo, if she would support a carbon tax — a measure she had not spelled out in her official policy proposal.

end quotes

So, there is Lizzie Warren who is going to spend $3 TRILLION on environmental issues, but to do that, she has to first scare enough people into believing that we have an actual “climate crisis,” as opposed to Democrat HYPE, and to do that, get us scared enough to vote for her, she needs us to take this IPCC crowd seriously, and there is where her whole house of cards comes tumbling down, because the IPCC is so blatantly political that it has no credibility.

And that brings us to “barmy” Bernie Sanders from that same article, as follows:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has not explicitly taken up Mr. Inslee’s ideas, said, “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States.”

Mr. Sanders has sought to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a plan that takes its name from the Green New Deal and has the biggest price tag of all the candidates’ proposals — $16.3 trillion over 15 years.

end quotes

Think about it, people – $16.3 TRILLION.

Where exactly is that kind of money coming from, given the size of our present national debt, and more importantly, besides down a rat hole, where is that money going?

And how would “barmy” Bernie convince us to shake loose with $16.3 TRILLION and give him control over that kind of money other than by telling us the sky is falling and we are faced with a “CLIMATE CRISIS,” EGADS!



You’re our hero, sigh!

Yeah, right!

And remember, friends do not let friends get sucked into Democrat climate crisis scams, hence this thread!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165

Post Reply