Thursday, January 16, 2020

Did NASA know back in 1958 our Sun and not CO2 was causing climate change?

Did NASA know back in 1958 our Sun and not CO2 was causing climate change? Christmas Eve, 1957 our Sun had 503 sun-spots, scaring the science community resulting in President Eisenhower to authorise the opening of NASA

Coincidence? Across the top of the stamp is the wording ‘International Geophysical Year 1957-1958,’ arranged in two lines, and across the bottom is ‘U.S. Postage 3c.’ All the lettering is in white-face Gothic. Philosophy of Science Portal

It is undeniable, climate change is real, however, Liberals, the establishment, most of the world leaders and leading media outlets want us to believe the reason behind climate change is the fault of human beings using fossil fuels and our high use of CO2, Carbon Dioxide. They claim Carbon dioxide absorbs more sunlight passing through it than oxygen or nitrogen, and therefore becomes hotter, much like a black substance like tar becomes hotter than a white one like concrete. This has the effect of increasing the overall temperature of the Earth. as we add more carbon dioxide to the air, the temperature will continue to rise. Actually, the records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth's temperature always rises first, followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide. Published papers, clearly show it is always temperature which rises first by at least several hundred years and then the carbon dioxide responds. 
The records of temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years indicate that Earth's temperature always rises first, followed by a rise in Carbon Dioxide. Graph izzit.org

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other. At the onset of glaciations, the temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.
Credit WUWT

Credit NASA

 Ladies and gentlemen, if I was to tell you, major earthquakes, volcano eruptions, floods, cyclones and natural disasters, all mirror that graph above and they all spike after Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 1957, you would come to the conclusion our Sun is causing climate change/disaster change and not humans, see graph below.

Every graph, they all provide the same data. Credit Wikipedia.

According to Royal Observatory of BelgiumChristmas Eve and Christmas Day, 1957, our star had a record-busting, 503 sunspots, see chart section below.
Credit Royal Observatory of Belgium

On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, 1957 the Sun had 503 sun-spots, this crazy number of sun-spots lasted for 5 days, our Sun was wild, which scared the science community at the time resulting in President Eisenhower to authorise the opening of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in July 1958. It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt,
In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. But, again, this information has yet to go mainstream, see the report on Earth Observatory Coincidently, Milankovitch died in 1958.


The 2 screengrabs represent Global temperatures from 1880 to 2018, however, the video below shows temperatures remained relatively stable until the late 50's when a spike in temperatures began, see video below

This colour-coded map in Robinson projection displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies from 1880 through 2018. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower than normal temperatures are shown in blue. The final frame represents the global temperatures 5-year averaged from 2014 through 2018. Scale in degree Celsius.
History of global temperature since the mid-nineteenth century through 2018 compared to the 1981-2010 average from four analysis teams: NOAA (red), NASA (tan), the University of East Anglia (pink), and the Japan Meteorological Agency (orange). In the background is an image of Earth on August 3, 2018, from NOAA's DSCOVR satellite.

On Christmas Eve 1957 The Amsterdam Evening recorder reported the Missing British Sub "Safe." Search Called Off 

The Admiralty said it was possible unusual sunspot activity over the past two days might have blacked it out. Gigantic explosions on the sun have bombarded the earth with cosmic rays, interfering with communications. 

LONDON UP)—The Admiralty today called off a search for the British submarine, Acheron sighted safe in gale swept seas after being feared lost for nearly six hours. The British minesweeper Coquette radioed three hours after the Admiralty reported the Acheron overdue that she had made "visual contact" with the sub. Acheron Sighted in Gale-Swept Arctic Sea by Minesweeper; Failure of Communications System Made Contact With Admiralty Impossible; Was Unreported Since Wednesday When It Made Trial Dive her communications system was out of order. The Acheron then proceeded to Iceland. The search started after the Acheron failed to make her routine radio report this morning.

The Acheron dived two days ago during arctic trials in the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland and should have reported by radio at 10:05 a.m. (5:05 a.m. EST) today. This message never came. The Admiralty said it was possible unusual sunspot activity over the past two days might have blacked it out. Gigantic explosions on the sun have bombarded the earth with cosmic rays, interfering with communications. In Copenhagen, the Danish government's telegraph authority said no radio messages had been received from Greenland stations since yesterday "morning. "Frankly," a spokesman for the authority said, "we cannot see how a vessel could get signals through while we cannot receive a word from powerful land stations."

At 11:05 am. the Admiralty flashed the "sub-miss" signal alerting all ships, planes and rescue services—military ' and civilian—to stand by for possible help. An hour later a "sub-sunk" order was flashed—signalling an immediate search with all available ships and planes. Royal Air Force planes roared off for Reykjavik, Iceland, to set up a base for search operations. U.S. Air Force units on Iceland already were standing by. Ships steamed out from Scotland and Iceland.

Vast Body of Scientific Data for Past 2,000 Years Affirms Sun, Not CO2, Controls Climate

Vast Body of Scientific Data for Past 2,000 Years Affirms Sun, Not CO2, Controls Climate

Written by Roger Higgs DPhil Oxford
Southern California Pacific Ocean Sunsets - YouTube
New study by respected Oxford-trained (DPhil) international geological consultant relying on archaeological, astrophysical, geological and palaeoclimatological data covering the last 2,000 years shows it is the Sun, not CO2, that controls global temperature.


Dr Roger Higgs DPhil (geology, Oxford, 1982-86), Geoclastica Ltd, UK, Technical Note 2020-1, 13th Jan 2020 writes:
Only key citations are given; please email for others. A cross-match between graphs of the Sun’s output and Earth’s mean surface temperature is obvious at two scales: (1) the last 2,000 years (2ky), represented by proxies (PAGES2k 2017 temperatures; Vieira et al. 2011 cosmogenic isotopes), both graphs being ‘hockey sticks’ with decadal ‘sawteeth’; and (2) the last 250y (Berkeley temperature compilation; Chatzistergos et al. 2017 sunspotgroup numbers).
In both cases, temperature clearly lags the Sun’s output by 80-120y, aligning: (A) the sawteeth;
(B) the ~1820AD and ~1700AD temperature- and solar minima (Little Ice Age nadir); (C) ensuing ‘modern warming’ and solar buildup to the modern solar Grand Maximum (GM; 1937-2004), strongest in 2ky; and (D) the next-strongest GM ~275-345AD and, tellingly, the ~400-450 warmest half-century (except post-1950?; Pages2k fig7a,b,c). Undeniably the Sun drives global temperature (Svensmark solar-magnetic/cloudiness link?).
In turn, sea level (SL; post-1700 tide-gauges) closely cross-matches temperature, SL lagging ~20y. Both lags probably reflect ocean thermal inertia and ‘conveyor-belt’ circulation (downwelled solar-heated North Atlantic water eventually upwells at Antarctica, affecting glacier flow rate into the ocean, hence SL). A sharp SL rise of 2-3m in only ~100y ~350-450AD reached ~1.5m above today’s SL.
This rise, sandwiched between SL falls of ~2m in ~200y, is Godwin’s (1943) ‘Romano-British transgression’ (RBT), aka Dunkirk II (Low Countries, explaining ~410-450AD Frisian-Anglo-Saxon exodus to Britain), St Firmin (France), Gilbert V (Pacific) and Wulfert (USA). Fairbridge’s updated (1976) Holocene SL compilation shows this oscillation (and others, likewise correlatable to solar GMs), verified by many later geological and archaeological studies. (Note also Blanchon et al. 2009 last-interglacial ~3m rise in <50y .="" p="">A glacio-eustatic origin, not glacio-hydro-isostatic, is indicated by RBT’s rapidity, great latitudinal span and associated global warming ~400AD (above). I suggest upwelling ‘GM-overwarmed’ water unleashed a Marine Ice-Sheet- and/or Ice-Cliff Instability event. Indeed, Antarctic seabed corrugations and cross-cutting iceberg ploughmarks suggest recent collapse of Antarctica’s ice-sheet snout (overhanging the grounding line) after the buttressing ice-shelf fragmented (Wise et al. 2017 fig 4; “ice apocalypse” of Goodell 2017).
If correct, the last such event made the grounding line recede behind its present position and occurred <11ky 2011="" 2013="" 3d="" accords="" ago="" al.="" antarctic="" et="" fig="" hevenell="" in="" increased="" moreover="" p="" raham="" rbt="" sea-surface="" temperature="" the="" this="" timing="" with="" y="">CONCLUSIONS: (1) Modern warming coincides with rising CO2 accidentally; (2) warming will continue until ~2090, lagging ~100y behind the modern solar GM’s 1991 magnetic peak (cosmicrays.oulu.fi); (3) the modern GM portends another rapid ~3m SL rise by ice collapse, starting by ~2040 and ending by ~2100 (NB currently increasing Antarctic ice-shelf bottom-water temperature, under-melting, grounding-line retreat and glacier velocity; and accelerating world SL rise); (4) IPCC (2014) assertions supposedly incriminating man’s CO2 emissions but disproven here include: (A) the Sun is unimportant in climate change; (B) Holocene SL was never higher than now; and (C) no SL oscillation of the previous 1700y exceeded 25cm (“medium confidence” only) until the ongoing ~30cm rise since 1700 (in fact RBT was ~10x greater, and averaged ~30x faster).

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

The Green assault on home ownership

The Green assault on home ownership

By |January 14th, 2020|Economy|12 Comments
With millennials postponing or wholly ignoring marriage while dealing with heavy student loan debt and greater mobility, home ownership for many Americans under 35 may not be as important a goal as it has been for the entirety of the American experiment. Higher prices even for entry-level homes may also be a contributor.
This shying away from home ownership has created an environment in which those who want to destroy the right to private property can find an audience. Thus it should be no surprise that UCLA urban planning professor Kian Goh, op ed in far-left magazine The Nation, wrote that, “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.”
Like wolves sensing weakness, some politicians have also jumped at the opportunity to propose a future without single-family homeowners. Maryland state legislator Vaughn Stewart wants to eliminate zoning regulations that protect single-family neighborhoods and instead mandate construction of tenements that will destroy property values in those “high-opportunity” neighborhoods.
Then Stewart, a white millennial who lives in ┼▒ber-rich Montgomery County, throws in the race card, ignoring well-enforced legislation that prohibits discrimination in housing. These property-value destroying steps, including ending “weaponized zoning codes” that push people of color and the working class “to the crumbling margins of cities and towns.”
Yup! Just as some far leftists want to take away private health insurance from 150 million Americans, others now want to take away the private property rights exercised by 83 million households!
Fortunately, current U.S. housing policy has a different idea. It’s called “Homeownership: The American Dream.”
That’s the title of an article by Rachelle Levitt, Director of the Research Utilization Division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research. Levitt pledged that increasing the rate of home ownership and the economic benefits that home ownership confers, continues to be a government and societal goal. This, so HUD will continue to ensure that the opportunity to seize this part of the American Dream is available to as many Americans as possible.
According to Levitt, “For many Americans, owning a home is an essential part of the American dream that conveys a number of economic benefits. Such as the ability to accumulate wealth and access credit by building home equity. Also to reduce housing costs through the mortgage interest deduction and gain long-term savings over the cost of renting.”
Now, while this may not be true for those who frequently relocated from city to city or for single adults not willing to rent out unused rooms in the typical three-bedroom bungalow, home ownership indeed makes all the difference in net worth.
Evidence is ample, but the fact that U.S. minority home ownership rates are just 46.3 percent (compared to 73 percent for whites) is a major reason that, according to Federal Reserve estimates, the median net worth of white families is nearly 10 times that of black families. Similarly, minority homeowners were twice as likely to face foreclosures than white homeowners in the wake of the 2008 big banks bailout.
This makes good fodder for those playing the race card. But then there are the millennials, who are facing a collective student loan debt [thanks to government and academia conspiring, perhaps unintentionally, to enslave even the brightest and best] of about $1.5 trillion. This is the primary reason even well-salaraied millennials are delaying home ownership, as reported by Casey Bond in the Huffington Post.
Bond cited a survey by the National Association of Realtors found that 83 percent of millennials ages 22 to 35 who have delayed home ownership, said they did so because of student loan debt. Bond quotes millennial certified financial planner Brian Face to illustrate the idea that many millennials are choosing to rent because it affords them better personal and financial opportunities. Face says:“Our generation is more about experiences,” and “the bottom line is you have to give up something in order to be a homeowner.”
With socialism, as taught in America’s public schools, gaining in popularity among the younger generation and a declining belief in (or even hatred of) the relationship between home ownership and the American Dream, it is not surprising that academics like Professor Goh are blaming climate change in part on home ownership itself.
Goh opines: “Cheap energy—both the monetary price of subsidized gasoline and the hidden costs of fossil fuels—and the idealization of individual homeownership have created the scorching landscapes we face today. Cheap energy is untenable in the face of climate emergency. And individual homeownership should be seriously questioned.”
In the face of ever-increasing, and ever more radical, socialist propaganda, is it possible that private property rights may go the way of freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? The social engineers of the Left surely hope so – but even Goh admits that, “Even with the threats of climate change and rampant fire looming, the ideals of the American Dream that have been instilled for more than 150 years [and which have blinded us to other possibilities (sic)] will be difficult to dispel.”

Trump Is Completely Remaking A Law Enviros Often Use To Stymie Oil Pipeline Construction

Trump Is Completely Remaking A Law Enviros Often Use To Stymie Oil Pipeline Construction


President Donald Trump announced Thursday his plans to dramatically change an environmental law activist groups and their attorneys often use to wrap oil projects in years of bureaucratic red tape.
Trump plans to exempt privately funded projects from undergoing environmental reviews, a significant change that would make building mines and pipelines much easier, The Washington Post reported. Energy producers are cheering the move.
The changes will narrow the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 50-year-old law requiring agencies to assess the impact a big project could cause to the environment. The administration directed the Daily Caller News Foundation to the White House website, where Trump explained his decision Thursday.
“America is a nation of builders,” the president said at the White House while explaining his decision.
“Yet today it can take more than 10 years to get a permit to build a simple road,” he said. “It’s big government at its absolute worst.”
It can often take years for a project to move forward while going through the NEPA process.
Instead of taking a decade, the new rule will allow projects to go forward after less than two years, Trump noted.
Environmentalists have used NEPA in recent years to defend against what they believe is Trump’s willingness to hasten oil pipeline construction. (RELATED: The Protests Over The Dakota Access Pipeline Explained)
Environmentalist groups, for instance, said the president violated the NEPA in 2017 when he approved the Keystone XL pipeline, which the administration based on a three-year-old analysis conducted when oil prices were more than double what they are now.
NEPA has also stood in the way of Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the southern border. Trump made building a giant border wall stretching from coast to coast part of his campaign message during the presidential election. The president has railed against the law in the past.
The president noted in a press statement on NEPA’s 50th anniversary on Jan. 1 that the law “can increase costs, derail important projects, and threaten jobs for American workers and labor union members.”
Unions and energy producers are calling the president’s move a long-needed change. Terry O’Sullivan, the general president of Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), told WaPo that the rule has impacted union jobs.
“For the hard-working members of LIUNA, who have had their livelihoods put on hold as infrastructure projects become mired in a review process that is needlessly long, complex, and lacks transparency, the administration’s anticipated NEPA reforms are a welcome change,” O’Sullivan told WaPo.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Pelosi Caves, Will Pass Articles Of Impeachment Onto The Senate Next Week

Pelosi Caves, Will Pass Articles Of Impeachment Onto The Senate Next Week

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced to lawmakers Friday that she would be proceeding with sending the passed articles of impeachment over to the Senate until next week.
“I have asked Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a dear colleague letter.
The letter comes as even members of her own party began to amp up pressure on the House speaker to hand over the articles for an impeachment trial to begin.
Pelosi put a halt to impeachment proceedings after House Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against the president just days before Christmas. Instead of signing off on the articles to the upper chamber for a trial to begin, Pelosi has held the articles hostage in a desperate effort to extract concessions from Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on a how a trial will be run.
Pelosi joined by Democratic lawmakers have urged McConnell to pledge calling additional witnesses to testify in a Senate trial after weeks of hearings in the House failed to surface any incriminating evidence to indict the president. In turn, public support for impeachment has gone underwater dashing Democratic hopes of applying enough public pressure on enough Senate Republicans to turn against the president of their own party.
The House speaker maintained that she would pass off the articles to the Senate for the next phase of the impeachment trial once McConnell promised to bring new witnesses before Congress to testify, most notably former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton who recently agreed to testify if subpoenaed.
McConnell however, has dug in and refused to bow to Pelosi’s demands. On Thursday, McConnell endorsed a resolution proposed by Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley and co-sponsored by a dozen Senate Republicans to dismiss the case against the president without the articles of impeachment.
The speaker’s gamble was a risky move that did nothing but further undercut a key premise of the rushed proceedings from the House. By keeping the articles in her possession for weeks after their passage, Pelosi undermined Democratic claims that the president was a present and urgent danger to the republic, exposing the entire proceedings to be nothing more than the latest play to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

Exclusive Carter Page Interview Raises New Questions About ‘Inaccuracy-Laden’ IG Report

Exclusive Carter Page Interview Raises New Questions About ‘Inaccuracy-Laden’ IG Report

Page’s comments raise more questions about Stefan Halper and whether Halper’s mid-July meeting with the Trump adviser was truly 'serendipitous.'
Margot Cleveland
By
It appears Stefan Halper, or his handler, exaggerated the circumstances of Halper’s mid-July 2016 meeting with former Donald Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, raising more questions about Halper’s role in Spygate.
The Federalist asked Page whether the inspector general’s report, which documented 17 significant inaccuracies or omissions in the secret federal surveillance applications, accurately portrayed his various interactions with Halper. According to the IG report, after the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI tasked Halper as a confidential human source to target Page, George Papadopoulos, and another unnamed, high-ranking Trump campaign official, widely known to be Sam Clovis.
Halper’s handling agent told the IG it was “serendipitous” that Source 2 — the moniker used for the unnamed Halper — “had contacts with three of their four subjects, including Carter Page.” They “couldn’t believe [their] luck,” the handling agent noted, upon learning that Halper knew Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, and had crossed paths with Page just weeks before.
After asking Halper about Papadopoulos, whom “he had never heard of,” the case agent told the Office of the Inspector General that Halper “asked whether the team had any interest in an individual named Carter Page.” The Crossfire Hurricane team inquired how Halper knew Page, and according to the IG report, Halper claimed “in mid-July 2016, Carter Page attended a three-day conference, during which Page had approached Source 2 and asked Source 2 to be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign.” The IG report noted that Halper said he “had been ‘non-committal’ about joining the campaign when discussing it with Carter Page.”
“That is quite clearly not a correct characterization,” Page said. “I never asked him ‘to be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign,’” although it is possible, Page acknowledged, that they explored some ways Halper might get involved indirectly at some point down the road. “But, as written in the inaccuracy-laden IG report, that’s an extraordinary mischaracterization.”
Page also noted he met Halper at the conference during a small welcome dinner at Magdalene College, hosted by Anglican Bishop Rowan Williams, held Sunday, July 10, 2016. “It was a small dinner with only about a dozen or so people in attendance,” Page told The Federalist. Thus, unlike the IG reports’ synopsis of Halper’s characterization of the event, which portrayed Page as seeking out Halper to invite him to join the Trump team, “pretty much everyone got to meet and speak with everyone,” Page explained.
Page’s comments raise more questions about Halper and whether Halper’s mid-July meeting with the Trump adviser was truly “serendipitous.”
The IG report unequivocally stated the FBI had not used any confidential human source prior to the July 31, 2016, launch of Crossfire Hurricane. Yet there was Halper at a small dinner gathering, chatting with Page, possibly about the Trump campaign. And it was Halper, not the FBI, who raised Page as a potential person of interest in the Crossfire Hurricane team’s first meeting with the confidential human source.
“The plan going into the meeting was to talk generally with Source 2 about Russian ‘interference in the election, what [Source 2] may know, and … to bring up Papadopoulos,’” the case agent told the IG. The agents “did not tell Source 2 that there was an open investigation or who the subjects were,” the IG report noted. They also made no mention of Page, tasking Halper solely with “reaching out to Papadopoulos which would allow the Crossfire Hurricane team to collect assessment information on Papadopoulos and potentially conduct an operation,” when Halper inquired about whether the FBI also had an interest in Page.
While the IG report answered many questions and exposed significant misconduct related to the four FISA applications targeting Page, many more questions remain unanswered. Did Halper hope to be tasked by the FBI with targeting Page? Had Halper been tasked by another agency already? And did Halper exaggerate the content of his conversation with Page to make Page appear instrumental in the Trump campaign. If so, for what purpose?
In this regard, Page finds himself no better off than the rest of America. “I still don’t know anything. I’ve been completely blocked in terms of getting any answers from the United States government,” Page noted, adding that he continues to pursue his Privacy Act claim, hoping he can finally get some closure.

New Details About Meeting FBI Source Suggest Carter Page Was Set Up

New Details About Meeting FBI Source Suggest Carter Page Was Set Up

Now that we know Stefan Halper wasn’t a mere fellow dinner guest at the gathering but was instead sitting abreast the table at his own college, it screams ‘set up.’
Margot Cleveland
By
Yesterday’s exclusive at The Federalist, revealing that Carter Page first met Stefan Halper at a small dinner at Magdalene College in Cambridge, triggered an immediate response from Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born British citizen who sued Halper last year for defamation for branding her a Russian spy.
Magdalene College was Halper’s college, Lokhova tweeted, adding that he held a lifetime fellowship there.
This added detail raises even more questions concerning the mid-July encounter between Halper and then-Donald Trump campaign advisor Page, given what we now know from Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into the four Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications. We know from Horowitz’s report that the FBI tasked Halper, identified solely as Source 2, to target Page, campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and a high-level Trump campaign member, Sam Clovis. And we know the IG’s report concluded that the FBI had not used any confidential human sources prior to the July 31, 2016, launch of Crossfire Hurricane.
These facts made Halper’s mid-July encounter with Page at a conference in the United Kingdom suspicious. The added fact that Halper met Page not during the conference proper, but at a small dinner gathering to kick off the conference, seemed even more suspect. Now that we know Halper wasn’t a mere fellow dinner guest at the gathering but was instead sitting abreast the table at his own college, it screams “set-up.”
One wonders, otherwise, what would prompt one of the limited number of seats at the welcome dinner to be allocated to Page, given the number of dignitaries and distinguished attendees in town for what was billed as “a major international conference focusing on the 2016 U.S. presidential election and implications that this will have for future U.S. foreign policy.”
So, did Halper have a hand in extending an invite to Page for this private dinner gathering in order to forge a connection with the campaign advisor? He seems to have had the clout to make that call, as one of only ten Life Fellow faculty members of the college, an apparent substantial donor of Magdalene College, and a member of the college’s Buckingham Society, which is reserved to those who have arranged bequests to Magdalene.
One also wonders whom, besides Halper and Page, attended this intimate dinner gathering. The confirmed speakers for that event included the keynote speaker, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove; German Ambassador to the UK Peter Ammon; the British former Defense and Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcom Rifkind; the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall; and Republican Party strategist and former Congressman Vin Weber.
Albright and Dearlove may be the obvious names of interest, but Vin Weber shouldn’t be overlooked. He was a featured speaker at the conference and billed at the time as a “Republican Strategist,” although he would later profess that he couldn’t “imagine remaining a Republican if Trump becomes president,” and promised that “if my vote decided the election, I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.”
(Weber’s disdain for Trump later took an ironic turn when he became entwined in the lobbying scandal that sent Trump’s former campaign chair, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s business partner, Rick Gates, to prison for illegally lobbying on behalf of the Ukraine government.)
In addition to Weber’s presence at the conference, another intrigue concerns a talk Halper gave just four days before meeting Page. A write-up of Halper’s lecture, part of the Cambridge’s Pembroke-Kings Programme’s Plenary lecture series, recapped the event:
His talk focused on the phenomenon which is ‘Trump’s maverick candidacy’ while also explaining the deficits in Clinton’s campaign which have caused the campaign to become almost too close to call. Professor Halper concluded his talk by stating that if the media focuses on Clinton, she will lose, whereas if they continue to focus on Trump, he will lose. This will be true despite Trump’s adept handling of the media that has resulted in him receiving two billion dollars worth of free media coverage. The floor was then opened up for students to ask questions which Professor Halper answered, only declining to tell the gathering who he was planning on voting for.
Halper’s insight is fascinating given that soon after the Cambridge conference ended, the featured keynote speaker, Albright, claimed that “Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.” Albright would further suggest that “Russia was likely behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails.”
Albright’s July 26, 2016, proclamation must have seemed prescient to the FBI, which mere days later would launch Crossfire Hurricane on the premise that Trump campaign had colluded with Russia over WikiLeaks’ release of the hacked emails. But maybe not so prescient to Halper?