Google+ Followers

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Al Gore Warmists fiddle historic sea level change data Past sea-level change is imagined downward. Therefore, sea level change is accelerating.

As with NOAA’s fiddling with historic temperature data, the past cannot be scientifically adjusted since the results cannot be confirmed.

The PNAS study is here.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The Truth about the Climate Change Fraud

This graph of the “CO2 caused heating of the atmosphere is a measure of the lengths the “Global Warming, We’re All Gonna Die!” panic pushers, Al Gore, Dr. Jim Hansen and Dr. Joe Romm, the New York Times “Climate Change Editor,” and even comic relief “Bill Nye The Science Guy” use as “scientific evidence” of the crisis.

Few will notice this is a 0.8 Celsius degree, 1.44 Fahrenheit degrees, over 160 years, but no main-stream science writer or journalist has reported this quantity is “…within the circle of confusion,” “experimental variation,” “normal measuring or natural deviations” and so on:  All polite, academic language for “Screw it!”
A far more accurate representation of the last 160 years of our temperature records is seen in a graph that displays the full range from Absolute Zero to the ambient temperature as that puts heat into a proper context.  Earth is said to have an average temperature of ten Celsius degrees as digging down a few feet anywhere but within the polar “circles” will have that temperature.
The Absolute average temperature of Earth’s surface is 283 Celsius degrees which a full measure of the energy or molecular activity for the surface of the planet.  It is only realistic to do all this work in degrees Absolute, or Kelvin, the name of the man who invented the absolute temperature system.
Kelvin observed that a gas shrank by 1/273rd when the temperate was lowered by one Celsius degree so he reasoned that if he were to reduce the temperature 273 degrees the gas would vanish.  In fact it would shrink to 0.00001 volumes as 99.999% of everything is empty space only filled by molecular motion.  We have about as much substance as the images on our TV screens, but that is another story.
When we display the above data properly the graph looks like this:
World Temp. Record graph

The horizontal axis time scale is in decades from 1850 to 2010 and the vertical axis temperature data is in degrees Kelvin.  The temperature data is as flat as a possum run over by an “18 wheeler.” This is conclusive evidence there is no evidence of a significant temperature increase as a result of the industrial age.  Furthermore, it is done with the “global warmer’s” data.
Add this to the work of James Woodward in the January 1978 Scientific America showing by far the most CO2 added to the atmosphere comes from the decay of limestone, decomposing dead plants and animals, a simple fact that has been the case for all of time and always will be.
We recently sent our paper, “Proving Climate Change” seen at: ( to nearly 1,000 LinkdIn physical scientists we have access to, thanks to our credentials, 90% of whom work for government or corporations with Federal contracts, asking that they read the paper, check the stoichiometry, the quantitative relationships therein, and do the demo “…to see the real role of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
From that campaign we received two positive responses that consisted of one “Happy Face” and one “Thumbs Up” logogram. No note, no text, nothing… We did get three nasty notes saying:  “You are nuts!”  “You’re sick.” and the most literate,”Go back to hillybilly Heaven” plus one invitation from a scientist asking us to call him, “…re the demo” and we have yet to connect, but will continue.
This tells me that 99.8% of the trained people involved in this know it is false and have sold out.  It also says, this will collapse or explode and from there who knows what will happen?  Something significant surely will if we can expose the dimensions of this scam so easily only to get this kind of reaction to the truth of the fraud.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

$3.2 million for advising the unwashed to keep meat off the dinner plate Obama surpasses algore as Global Warming’s Biggest Hypocrite

Barack Obama who’s about as much a nutrition expert as his wife Michelle, was paid a whopping $3.2 million as keynote speaker at the Seeds & Chips Global Food Innovation Summit in Milan, Italy on Tuesday, speaking about food security and climate change.
That’s $3.2 million for advising the unwashed to keep meat off the dinner plate.
Likely hoping most wouldn’t remember the $100-per serving wagyu steak he preferred to have served up in the White House during his days as president, Obama now warns the world that more people on the planet are eating meat—causing a dramatic rise in climate emissions.

All global warming gurus, past and present, leave Sasquatch-sized global footprints on the same Mother Earth they claim to be rescuing

The unproven theory that eating meat causes a spike in climate emissions comes straight from the propaganda of his late environmental mentor, UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong, who told a UN conference in 1992..:“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
All global warming gurus, past and present, leave Sasquatch-sized global footprints on the same Mother Earth they claim to be rescuing.
Obama used a private jet and a 14-car convoy to get to the ‘Climate Speech’  venue, and that’s not counting the 300-plus security staff he had in tow.
The dangers to the environment of meat eating, Hussein Obama style:
“As people want to increase meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sector,” Obama said, pointing to countries that were consuming more meat. (Breitbart, May 9, 2017)
“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows and methane,” Obama said, adding that “as people want to increase more meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sectors.”

Cow herds may be emitting methane out in the fields, but Obama belches beef

“The amount of cows, Obama explained, were contributing to global pollution, alluding to the amounts of methane gas emissions from cow herds.”
Cow herds may be emitting methane out in the fields, but Obama belches beef.
“No matter what, we are going to see an increase in meat consumption,” Obama said, pointing to developing economies in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. More advanced countries, Obama said, would have to teach people to “have a smaller steak” and explore reductions to their meat consumption. ()
Now that the Fundamental Transformation of America has been taken away from him, by dint of his surrogate Hillary Clinton’s rejection as president, Obama gets to call countries other than China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, “more advanced”, an insult he thinks will have the unwashed giving up on steak and meat.
“What it does mean is that we’re also going to have to find ways to produce protein in a more efficient way,” he said. (Breitbart)
“During the conversation, Obama argued with his former chef Sam Kass about how many steaks he had cooked him.
“Kass said that he probably cooked “thousands of steaks” for the president, but Obama interrupted.

Patron saint of the ‘Sacrosanct Non-Meat Eaters Society’

“I don’t think, thousands,” he protested.
“Well hundreds maybe,” Kass backtracked. “I’ve been cooking for you for 10 years.”
“What is true is that I’m not a vegetarian,” Obama admitted, adding that he “respected vegetarians” but continued to eat meat.”
This patron saint of the ‘Sacrosanct Non-Meat Eaters Society’ went on to eat meat long after the 10 years you’ve been cooking for him, Chef Kass.
The first meal he had after returning from a long bout of the sulks after the Trump inauguration saw Obama cutting his way through a “$49 double lamb chop” at the New York Italian restaurant, Carbone last March. (Daily Mail, March 10, 2017)
Marxist environmental dictates makes it automatically okay for ex-presidents to chow down on meat, but not for the poor.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Barack Obama in Milan: Climate Change ‘Created by Man’ and ‘Can Be Solved by Man’

 So Obama, you drop bomb's,  on the planet, you claim your try to save?

 Image result for Obama dropping bombs



Former President Barack Obama returned to his gospel of climate change alarmism, preaching to Italians in Milan about the impending doom facing the planet.

“When it comes to climate change, the hour is almost upon us,” he warned, urging the world to “set aside our parochial differences” to create a better planet for the world’s children.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

New Study Is Disastrous News For Al Gore Fracking Opponents, Global Warming Alarmists

Image result for Al gore mad

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as “fracking,” has been the target of numerous environmental groups and climate change alarmists since becoming a significant part of the U.S. economy. Fracking has allowed companies to extract oil and natural gas from the ground in areas that were once thought to be impossible to get to, which means in the minds of environmental extremists, it’s helping to contribute to man-caused global warming.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if fracking were banned, as many environmentalists have suggested, there would be 14.8 million fewer jobs by 2022 and the price of gasoline and electricity would double compared to what they would otherwise be.
Because fracking has provided incredible economic benefits, especially in many states in the Midwest and West, environmentalists have attempted to argue it should be banned based on other potential risks. One of the most cited “problems” fracking allegedly causes is the contamination of drinking water. Environmentalists have long claimed the fracking process causes dangerous chemicals and other damage to natural water sources, and in some areas, as a result, environmentalists have been successful in convincing lawmakers to pass bans.
Well-crafted studies, however, have shown these fears are completely overblown and unnecessary, and a new study by researchers at Duke University confirms these findings. According to the researchers, hydraulic fracturing processes do not pose a systemic impact on groundwater

Incredibly, the study was funded in part by the far-left Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization that has historically been an adamant opponent of fracking.
On its website, the NRDC wrote, “While the exact mixtures of chemicals used for fracking are often withheld as trade secrets, we do know that many of them have been associated with a whole host of health issues, including cancer. Moreover, fracking can cause some severe environmental impacts and public health threats.”
“Even on good days, a fracking operation does not make for a great neighbor,” NRDC also said. “Drilling and fracturing cause loud noises and require bright lights. … On bad days, things get even worse. Chemical-laced wastewater can spill and pollute drinking water as well as cause earthquakes when massive amounts of it are disposed. Fracking is also not immune to mishaps like dangerous and climate change–aggravating methane leaks and even explosions.”
Tim Benson, a policy analyst at The Heartland Institute, where I also work as an editor, wrote earlier in May, “The existing peer-reviewed evidence shows hydraulic fracturing processes do not pose a systemic impact on groundwater. Since 2010, at least 18 of these studies have been produced, including ones by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas-Austin, the Department of Geology at the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Cincinnati, the California Council on Science and Technology and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources.”
Perhaps the NRDC and other environmental groups will reexamine their positions on fracking in light of the mounting evidence showing fracking is, generally speaking, a safe and effective way of extracting oil and gas.