Friday, July 31, 2015

‘600 page litany of doom': Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’ | Climate Depot

‘600 page litany of doom': Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’

‘600 page litany of doom': Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’

By: - Climate DepotMay 7, 2014 7:35 AM with 997 comments
Update: ‘Climate Hustle’ or ‘American Doomsday’?! Obama climate report panned by scientists – ‘Pseudoscience’ ‘sales pitch’ ‘follow the money’ ‘total distortion’ ‘false premise’ ‘outdated & wrong’ ‘failure’

(For more on global temperature standstill see here: Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months)
John Coleman’s Blog for Wednesday, May 7th

The sky is falling. “Climate Change” is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to “green energy” to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report. It was reviewed by federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.
If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.
I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).
Please allow me to hold your attention for a few minutes to explain why I don’t buy into this Climate Change alarmism. The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed.
The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.
When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.
They call people such as me who debunk their non-scientific silliness as “deniers” and claim we are flat-earthers and shills for “big oil”. It is insulting and maddening. But I will not be silenced. And neither will the thousand others, many of them with Ph.D.’s and on the faculties of major universities who are working to stop this bad science that labels CO2 as a pollutant and blames it for every shift in the weather.
We will be gathering, we global warming skeptics, at Heartland Institutes 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7 – 9, 2014 in Las Vegas. You can learn about that conference at I will be one of the speakers at the breakfast session on Tuesday July 8th. Look at the list of speakers on the website and you will see an impressive group. A group of the powerful Ph.D.’s in the group have recently published a complete scientific document that totaling destroys the climate change alarmism of the US Democrat Party and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can find that publication on line at
In the meantime, through blogs, and radio and television interviews whenever any of us can get on the air we will continue to try to debunk this way of climate alarmism. For instance, I will be on the air on WLS Radio in Chicago with Bruce Wolf & Dan Proft on Wednesday morning (today) at 8:45 AM Chicago time (6:45 AM San Diego time) and do my best to tell the real story of climate and weather. You can listen to that broadcast on line at
All of this not withstanding, my life is sooo good. Every day is fun and relaxed since I have ended the tread mill life of grinding out all those TV weathercasts a day. I now do my dancing for fun only. LOL
Blog for Tuesday, May 6th
The President of the United States has decided to make Climate Change a major issue of the last two years of his Administration.  This deeply saddens me but I won’t give up my effort to debunk the horrid distortion of science that has led to this Climate Change Alarmism campaign.  First of all, please, believe me, there is no significant man-made global warming. There is a minor warming trend continuing as Earth continues to go through its normal, natural climate change from Ice Age to Interglacial period which in ten thousand year or so will fade into another ice age.  The activities of mankind in powering our civilization with fossil fuels has had no significant impact on this natural process. And this chart shows that the warming has stalled now for 17 plus years:
So today to launch his new campaign the President has invited a group of television Meteorologist to the White House to interview him on the topic.  The barrage of publicity will be deafening.  I deeply regret that the global warming/climate change thing has become a partisan political issue.  Al Gore made global warming a Platform issue for the Democrat Party and it is now accepted without serious study or scientific consideration by a vast majority of liberals in this country.  And, as politics goes, the Republican Party denies global warming because it is a key issue of the other party without even studying the science.
There are thousands and thousands of scientists who know without a doubt that the entire matter is based on bad science. We fight with everything we have to inform the public of the truth, but the dominate liberal media shuns us and the global warming team calls us names and insults us. We know we right and we try to explain that this global warming campaign is costing us billions in tax dollars every year and driving up the our cost of living by well over a thousand dollars a year for the average family (and the cost is increasing dramatically in the coming years as the government enacts cap and trade regulations.)  One dramatic increase is in the cost of corn.  This is leading to hunger and perhaps thousands of deaths per year in the poorest nations of the world.  It is not a small, “who cares” matter.  You can get my explanation of how this all got started and what the bad science is all about by watching my videos on this website or following my links to active climate change debunking websites of scientists I greatly respect.  I get you to set politics aside and study the science of the issue.  It is important.  Meanwhile, somehow I will get through the next 48 hours or so of massive publicity on the issue.
Best regards,
John Coleman

Dear "New" Coloradans: Here is Beginner's Guide To Help You Out!

Dear "New" Coloradans: Here is Beginner's Guide To Help You Out!

Dear "New" Coloradans: Here is Beginner's Guide To Help You Out! (Colorado)

image 1image 2image 3image 4image 5image 6image 7image 8image 9image 10

Dear "New" Coloradans, (Yup, that means "you" if you have been here less than five years or those of you who moved here for the weed since legalization)

As a concerned Colorado native who is witnessing a massive population influx and demographic shift in my beloved, beautiful state, I feel it is necessary to highlight a few issues, offer some suggestions and guidance, and generally lay down the law for you "new" Coloradans so we can all hopefully get along in the future because things are getting a little out of control right now.

In no particular order we begin:


2) Assimilate if you do already live here. You know how native Coloradans know you are new to the state and are going to be an irritating pain in the ass? Because you are wearing a "Colorado" t-shirt, a "Colorado" hat, a "Colorado" wrist band, your car is covered in "Colorado" stickers and your mangy-assed, unruly, misbehaving feral child is wearing a "Colorado" diaper. STOP IMMEDIATELY. No native Coloradan has ever overly displayed the state flag in such a manner. Stop being so obvious, just dress like you did back in California or New York.

3) Yes marijuana is legal in Colorado. Hooray. Yay. GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE! Many of us in Colorado (including myself) voted for legalization. That does not mean ALL Coloradans smoke weed.

Please enjoy your weed responsibly in your own home as the law states. Walking down the sidewalk pulling bong hits while wandering carelessly into the street, hitting the pipe in rush hour traffic and sitting through 4 cycles of the stop light, and constantly begging for/and or offering weed as form of payment for services rendered is not acceptable and it is still illegal.

If I jump start your car, or pull you out of a ditch because you are a shitty driver in the snow, say "Thank You" but DO NOT try to bribe me with "weed bro". I am NOT your "bro", I am a native Coloradan being a good Samaritan and I don't require "smoke" or "420" in payment.

Stop smoking your weed in public, all though many of us support your right to legally smoke weed in the privacy of your own home, we do not like having the smoke blown in our faces 24/7, and we are sick of our state smelling like a skunk's nutsack.

ACT RESPONSIBLY because right now you fuckers are giving the legalization movement a bad name with your childish and stupid antics here in Colorado. If drunks acted like most of you pot heads are currently acting there would be another Prohibition movement. Please, chill the fuck out.

4) Please RESPECT the mountains! If you are going on your very first camping trip ever, please pack out EVERYTHING you pack in! There are not "forest mommies" who come in to pick up your trash after you leave the campsite! It is YOUR duty as Colorado citizen to protect our wilderness areas and leave them as you found them! PLEASE STOP LEAVING YOUR TRASH ALL OVER THE MOUNTAINS!

5) For the love of Christ tunnels ARE NOT fucking stop signs!!!! I realize that there is nothing taller than a tick turd in Illinois and the whole concept of driving a car through a hole in the mountain is probably terrifying for a lot of you, but there's nothing to be afraid of. Tunnels aren't a portal into some "Alice in Wonderland" bizarro world. "Tunnels" are horizontal shafts bored through the mountain which enable vehicle travel unimpeded. A "stop" sign is an octagonal piece of sheet metal, painted red with a white outline that has the word "STOP" emblazoned on it in large white letters. "Stop" signs are found on poles, normally at intersections of busy streets. "Tunnels" are just holes that go through the rock. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SLOW DOWN AND COME TO A COMPLETE STOP AND HAVE A CASE OF THE "PANIC PISSES" AT EVERY TUNNEL YOU ENCOUNTER- Just drive through the tunnel, they are not "scary" and you will come out the other side just fine. If it is confusing, just remember "stop" at signs, drive through "tunnels"'s not that fucking difficult people.

6) "All-wheel drive" "4-wheel drive" and "SUV" does not mean you can drive like a goddamned maniac in the snow. These features simply improve your vehicles ability to maneuver in the snow, or off-road, but they do not mean you can stop instantly on black ice. You still need to drive with some aspect of caution and responsibility in bad weather.
6b) The same goes for heavy rain- Why do all of you new Coloradans come to a complete stop in the rain and panic shit all over yourselves and convulse and chant in tongues when it rains? You drive like madmen on speed when it snows, but a little rain hits and you all suffer from complete body and mental shutdown??? FIGURE IT OUT PLEASE- Just slow down a little bit in BOTH rain AND snow and you'll be just fine.

7) Nobody thinks your children are cute. Keep them muzzled in the back seat and for fucks sake never, ever, ever under ANY circumstances take them in to a restaurant. In Colorado we still think children are to be seen and not heard, and your undisciplined, shitty-pants, dirty-faced, mess-haired savage needs a proper ass beating and some behavior parameters laid out clearly in front of them before you take them out in public. That "free spirit" parenting bullshit, and "it takes a village" mentality may be the way it's done in California, but here in Colorado it's not. If you won't discipline those screaming pant pissers I'll lay a beating on them for you, they aren't my kids, beleive me, I harbor no reservations at swatting the annoying little cocksuckers.

8) If I see one more fucking fleece vest I'm gonna administer some random ass-beatings.

9)When you take short half-mile hike on well-maintained, paved path with a parking lot with toilet facilities and picnic pavillions YOU DON'T NEED A FUCKING FRAME BACKPACK, FLARE GUN, AND AN IDITAROD DOG TEAM. It's a fucking paved path you candy asses! Take a bottle of water and go. REAL Coloradans can go 10 miles into the back country above 11,000 ft. with a bottle of water, piece of beef jerky and pocket knife, no map, no trail, no "safety signs" and come back alive a few hours later completely unscathed by the hike. What the hell do you wimps need 400 pounds of survival gear for to walk around the lake at Wash Park for??? Harden the fuck up if you're gonna live here!

10) Learn how to fucking park in the mountains! Every week the problem gets worse and worse. The Rocky Mountains are enormous and span thousands of squares miles within the state of Colorado- Everybody DOES NOT have to go to the same trail on the same fucking day and clog every route in and out with their fucked up Subarus covered in "Colorado" stickers that are improperly or illegally parked all over the shoulders of the already narrow mountain roads, causing a clusterfuck for us native Coloradans who are trying to get from Point A to Point B. I would highly suggest and fully encourage all of you "new" Coloradans to invest in a quality atlas of the state of Colorado so you dumbshits can realize that there are plenty of easily accessible mountain areas to visit, not just Gray's Peak and Guanella Pass...Then again, reading an atlas would require some amount of personal initiative, intelligence and concentration as well as analytical skills and a sense of direction, and when you're stoned out of your mind 24/7 that is impossible. So fuck it!

11) Use your turn signals when changing lanes. It's not that hard you assholes.

12) In Colorado, especially outside of the metro area many native Coloradans still wave at passing vehicles on the lonely back roads. It is Colorado etiquette to return the wave with a nod and smile, not to flip the person off and scream "Fuck you asshole! Are you steppin?" That is California and New York behavior, not Colorado behavior, and it is not welcome or wanted in our state. Believe it or not, before all of you high-strung, intense, angry city assholes from the coasts moved here and brought your anger and hatred with you, Colorado was a happy, mellow place, Many of us would like to see that return but we need you all to drop the attitudes at the border when you move here.

13) Colorado has a huge Hispanic population. Please do not try to be politically correct by attempting to talk to them all in Spanish. Many of Colorado's Hispanic families have been here since the early 1800's and these families have been highly influential in the history of our great state- They speak English and aren't "Mexicans" who are your servants that you need to talk down to. Pack your high and mighty, arrogant (and ignorant) patronizing political correctness up your ass and treat them like the perfectly normal human beings they are, not "exotic Hispanic novelties" that you can write home about. There is nothing more pathetic and stupid than watching a politically correct pansy mangle the Spanish language while trying to talk to someone who speaks English just fine. STOP.

14) AGAIN, CONTROL YOUR CHILDREN. Just reiterating a point made previously.

15) If you somehow get lost on the way to the latest "hip bistro" and find yourself in a cowboy bar, DO NOT try to fit in by loading the juke box up with Luke Bryan. You're likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a stout man's fist and another's boot heel. Your east and west coast conceptions of what it "country" are incorrect. As a matter of fact if you find yourself accidentally in a cowboy bar, just turn around and leave and go find that bistro you were looking for. Some arugula and an IPA looks better on you than a black eye anyhow.

16) Real Coloradans own guns, fishing poles, tents, etc. We hunt, fish, drink beer, fart, say fuck, use the "N" word when it's called for, and aren't afraid to fly the flag and tell the truth- If it's shit we're gonna call it shit and not dance around the subject. If you are "offended" by anything, leave Colorado and go back to whatever utopia whence you came. We're still "real" here.

17) Rivers and streams and and riverbanks are for ALL of us top enjoy- Not just 10-speed assholes and holier than thou eltist fly fishing pricks. We can pan for gold and use a worm in the same river you fly fish or bike alongside, and my gold pan or worm is going to cause less ecological damage than the bulldozers and dynamite that are raping the riverbank to build your fucking bike path.

In closing, understand that Colorado is a western state that was founded on the back breaking labor, blood, sweat and tears of pioneers, miners, ranchers and farmers. Colorado gained it's strength through industry long before it was the "weed state" and a haven for trust funders fleeing the urban cesspools of California and the east coast. You're welcome in our state, but understand our culture and don't try to mold Colorado into the image of the shit holes you left. If you want that lifestyle, go back home, if you want the "authentic" Colorado lifestyle you need toughen up and take a few lessons.


Thanks for flocking here by the thousands and driving up the cost of living to an insane level! Three years ago you could rent a nice place in Denver for under $1000, now you can't get a cardboard shack in the ghetto for under $2000. Thanks Dicks! You've made the slum lords rich and fucked over the middle class!

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong - Forbes

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong 

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.
1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”
Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?
What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.
It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.
color 4 panel3Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014
Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.
On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.
This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.
John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:
And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.
In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.
Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.
But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty « JoNova

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty 

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

No 97% consensus, man-made global warming, survey climate scientists
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and try to “guess”.
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.
The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”
—  Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
Climate scientists, survey, consensus, 97%, certainty,
Climate Scientists, consensus, survey, 97%, 43%, certainty
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons.
UPDATE: Curiously this new detailed study builds on a previous study by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, which was issued in 2014 and includes the same authors, as well as John Cook and a few others.[2] Jose Duarte responded to that first version, pointing out that many of the people surveyed worked in mitigation and impacts of climate change, (not climate “science” per se) which artificially inflated the results.[3]

Is there an alternate skeptical theory in climate science?

Fabius Maximus asks whether there is a common skeptic view-point, or a dominant paradigm, and talks about Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Kuhn’s work shows that a paradigm cannot be disproved, only replaced (details here). Unless the skeptics form a theory, they’ll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they’re distinct, although often conflated).
To that end, I would say that no one has ever done a decent survey of skeptical scientists, so we don’t know. Though the fact that so many psychologists say they want to understand skeptics and so few of them survey the scientists or leaders involved in this is rather significant, methinks.
To venture a guess I would say that among skeptics the dominant hypothesis is that some factor to do with the Sun is far more important than man-made CO2. To the end that skeptics need an alternate hypothesis, I agree, and there are many working on just that. Dr David Evans (my other half) is still hammering through climate model architecture, assumptions, and solar datasets. Readers may be impatient waiting for an update; I can only say that sometimes the art of real research and discovery is better done in silence and without the pointless “bloodsport” of blog publication, but we are thinking “August” or “September”, and there are many posts in draft.  David prefers to keep a lower profile while researching, but he is working full time, and will be suggesting a paradigm shift in model design which looks like it will resolve a great many of the current model failures. The shift is only a small change in architecture, while keeping most core assumptions of IPCC models, yet it makes a profound change to the output. He has gone right back through the central assumptions of calculating climate sensitivity and the leading papers of the last fifteen years. As far as we know, he is the only skeptical scientist who comes from a professional background in model development combined with major league maths.
Independent science and independent commentary is only possible thanks to donations from readers.
We are very grateful to our team of supporters.
 h/t GWPF
POST NOTE: Naturally, a study of “consensus” tells us something about socio-cultural factors but nothing specifically about the climate.


[1^]   Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer (2015) Climate Science Survey, Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, pp 1 – 39.
[2^] Bart Verheggen,  Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland, Kees Vringer, Jeroen Peters, Hans Visser, and Leo Meyer. (2014) Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming. Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e, 2014.
[3^] Duarte, Jose (2014) Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming”, Arizona State University,  Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (23), pp 14057–14058,  DOI: 10.1021/es504574v
CORRECTION: The reference was originally incorrectly cited as the older (2014) paper (now numbered 2), though it was linked to the newer paper. This is now fixed.

White House Scrambles To Scrub This Video From The Internet [VIDEO]

White House Scrambles To Scrub This Video From The Internet [VIDEO] 

White House Scrambles To Scrub This Video From The Internet [VIDEO]

Despite his desperate claims that he is a Christian, 17% of the American population still believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
During his campaign for president in 2008, Obama first came forward to express his “faith” in an interview with Christian Today magazine.
“I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian,” he stated. “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Many believe that these claims were designed to help the President win the election, especially since there are several pieces of evidence that point to his Muslim background.
“The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans,” Obama once claimed. “Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country—I know because I am one of them.”
Let’s not forget that Obama’s middle name is Hussein, referencing Husayn, the grandson of Muhammad.
What do you think? Does Obama continue to lie to the American public?

Socialism's Downfall

Socialism's Downfall

Socialism's Downfall

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and it will continue to do so despite the best efforts of the die-hard true believers in the Obama administration and the rest of the world. The most recent example of this failure: Euro-Socialism is presently bankrupting the countries that embraced it in Europe. This will result not only in more social and economic upheaval, but also the ultimate demise of the ill-conceived European Union.

The original and current proponents of socialism fail to take into account one very basic but immutable factor: the fundamental nature of the human race.

The most dominant trait mankind has, as do all living creatures, is an innate desire to survive and prosper.

While some may willingly choose to pursue subsistence on their own terms, to the vast majority of the human race, the path of least resistance is the most desired. Thus, mankind is susceptible to financial scams, gambling, crime, and resentment or violence towards those who may have more. But above all, people are very open to the concept of a central authority providing them with the means of livelihood.

A secondary characteristic of human race, again shared by other species, is the need by some within the group to conquer or maintain control over their fellow man. Thanks to modern technology and weaponry, gone are the days when a megalomaniac could by sheer force of determination and arms conquer and impose his will on others. 

The mid-19th century saw the Industrial Revolution and the rise in living standards and education for the populace in Europe. It was during this same period that the advent of socialist/Marxist theory occurred. Those that considered themselves superior to the masses, and in the past may have achieved ruling status through the power of intimidation over the illiterate and unwashed, now had to look to other means to achieve control of the levers of government.

The easiest course to assume this power was to promise, in return for the support of the people, that the state through a new ruling class would provide the citizenry cradle-to-grave economic security. Thus, a Faustian bargain encompassing the desire by the majority for ease of survival and others for the need to rule would be entered into. The populace, having committed itself to this compact, would expect never-ending freedom from adversity.

However, within this arrangement is the seed of its own destruction. For socialism to succeed, it must have an economic underpinning that can provide the foundation for massive social spending. The Soviet Union, as early as the 1920s and '30s, proved that complete state control of the means of production was a colossal failure, as it could not produce sufficient wealth to support the population.

Therefore, only the capitalist economic system, which is anathema to a powerful central government and its attendant oligarchy, can produce sufficient wealth to underwrite a social safety net for the general public and finance the agenda of the governing class.

Capitalism, reflective of that portion of mankind choosing to seek subsistence on their own terms, does by its nature celebrate the success of the individual, not the collective. Individuals, separately or together, driven by the motive of self-enrichment, produce goods or services desired by others. In the process, jobs and wealth are created, thus benefiting society as a whole.

A massive tension exists between those who adhere to central government control and swear fealty to socialist/Marxist philosophy and those who produce the wealth of a nation. The state inherently has more power than the individual, and once the radical element of the ruling class assumes power, government begins an inexorable process of injecting itself into the affairs of the individual and producer class (which is always a minority in any society).

Those who believe they have a manifest destiny to rule and are faithful to socialist tenets have a predisposition to control the populace and economic activity through laws, regulations, taxes, and intimidation. Despite the lesson of the Soviet Union and its state control of the economy, every new generation of adherents to socialist ideology believe they can make this fallacious philosophy work and maintain their arrangement with the citizenry.

But the reality is that they cannot, as the economic engine of capitalism will not continue to produce wealth if it is increasingly put under the thumb of bureaucrats and central planners inevitably attempting not only to institute state control of the economy, but to also to regulate the day-to-day lives of all citizens.  The motivation of the producer class will be stifled and they will either drop out, join the dependent class or simply move on to other more hospitable countries.

Governments will, as history has shown (most recently in Europe), turn to excessive and unsustainable borrowings and inflation to finance their societal obligations. The contract between the statists and the citizens who were promised cradle-to-grave security cannot be maintained, as the economic underpinning of this arrangement will quickly erode.
Social and economic chaos resulting in dramatically lower standard of living must inevitably ensue, and in some cases, these conditions will lead to violence or revolution. No amount of promises, demonization of capitalism and seizure of the means of production, confiscatory taxes, or printing of money will reinstitute prosperity or security for the populace. This is the path on which President Obama and his fellow travelers have set the United States.

The founding fathers of the United States, one of the greatest confluences of brilliant minds in the history of mankind, understood the basic nature of human beings. They accordingly set forth a form of government and a written Constitution to greatly limit those who seek hegemony over the people, especially those seeking unlimited security from a central government. They recognized that only the individual free to pursue economic happiness would result in a society wherein all would benefit on a sustained basis.

The voters of the United States made a grave error in judgment in 2008; but unlike in many other countries in Europe and elsewhere, this mistake can be reversed, as the citizens of the United States do have the governmental structure to allow the country to step back from the precipice that this nation and many others are presently staring into. But will the general public understand that the socialist path the nation is on is preordained to fail? Will the citizenry change the government before it is too late?

A Paradigm Change: Re-directing public concern from Global Warming to Global Cooling

A Paradigm Change: Re-directing public concern from Global Warming to Global Cooling

A Paradigm Change: Re-directing public concern from Global Warming to Global Cooling

I want to change public concern from Global (GW) to Global Cooling (GC).  Presented here are three arguments in favor of such a drastic shift -- which involves also a drastic shift in current policies, such as mitigation of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide.
My main argument relies on the fact, backed by historical evidence, that cooling, even on a regional or local scale, is much more damaging than warming.  The key threat is to agriculture, leading to failure of harvests, followed by famine, starvation, disease, and mass deaths.
Also, GC is reasonably sure, while GW is iffy.  The evidence, again, is historical -- from deep-sea sediment cores and ice cores.  Our planet has experienced some 17 (Milankovitch-style) glaciations in the past 2 million years, each typically lasting 100,000 years, interrupted by warm inter-glacials, typically of around 10,000-yr duration. The most recent glaciation ended rather suddenly about 12,000 years ago.  We are now in the warm Holocene, which is expected to end soon. 
In fact, we may have already entered into the next glaciation -- as we can discover only in retrospect.  (Past cycles suggest a very gradual cooling initially -- with ice accumulation and a drop in global sea levels, a decrease in atmospheric CO2 into the cooling oceans and lowest temperatures occurring only much later in the cycle.)
Archeological data show that the recent glaciation wiped out the Neanderthalers and much of the fauna that constituted their source of food.  Most of humanity may not survive the next, inevitable glaciation.
We need to consider also the warming-cooling (Dansgaard-Oeschger-Bond -- DOB) cycles, which seem to be solar-controlled and have a period of approx 1000-1500 years; its most recent cooling phase, the “Little Ice Age” (LIA), ended about 200 years ago.  For details, see Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years by Singer and Avery [2007].
The LIAs are not nearly as severe as the major glaciations; yet they present an important threat to the food supply and to current civilization.  Available technology seems adequate to assure human survival -- at least in industrialized nations.  The main threat is warfare, driven by competition for food and other essential resources.  With nuclear weapons and delivery systems widely dispersed, the outcome of future wars is difficult to predict.
Geo-Engineering: Overcoming a Future Ice Age
In a word: the possibility of using technology to overcome a future cooling looks promising for both types of ice ages -- with relatively low cost and low risk to the physical and biological environment.
Geo-Engineering has generally been discussed in relation to GW -- most recently in two reports issued by the US National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.  The schemes most favored include either reduction of solar intensity (by increasing Earth’s albedo (the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space) or reduction of the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide (under the unproven assumption that the increasing level of the GH gas CO2 is responsible for such a GW).  Unfortunately, both approaches are costly and have undesirable side effects.
With regard to the Milankovitch cycles, there is of course little chance of changing the astronomical parameters that influence the cycles.  One can dream up engineering schemes to increase solar flux to the Earth’s surface -- either by increasing solar intensity or by reducing general albedo.  Both approaches are costly and risky.
The most promising method is to find a “trigger” -- a phenomenon that initiates the glaciation.  The most common suggestion is a high-latitude snowfield that somehow survives summer melting.  It can then grow from year to year in extent and thickness and develop into an ice sheet by a kind of positive feedback -- thanks to the high albedo of snow and ice.
The easiest way to locate such triggers is by digital comparison of successive images from existing weather satellites.  This non-intrusive scheme costs very little and presents no risks of any kind; it is simply a software program that processes available data in a special way.  It is fairly easy to establish an automatic routine to accomplish this task.
Once such growing snowfields have been located, they can be covered with black soot to decrease albedo.  The summer sun can then do its work.  How much soot?  A certain amount of experimentation is required to answer the question. The best way to produce and spread soot particles can again by found by experiment; it looks like a rather simple technical issue, akin to crop-dusting in agriculture.
The problem appears to be rather different for DOB cycles; there may not be any triggers to initiate the cold phase of a cycle -- although clues on timing may be derived from solar observations.  These clues may simply be the time-history of sunspot numbers; but more sophisticated techniques to monitor the Sun are just now becoming available.  
The aim would be to eliminate the cold phase -- or at least diminish it.  The problem is rather complicated; judging from available but imperfect and incomplete data.  Observations between 1400 and 1800 AD of the Little Ice Age show that cooling appears to be regional rather than global; in addition, the cold phase is not continuous but consists of decades-long frigid intervals, with warmer periods in between.
Obviously, there is much scope here for research on how to ameliorate DOB cooling.  One suggestion is to make use of GH effects.  But CO2 is not the answer; its atmospheric lifetime is too long and its distribution is global -- a poor match to what is required.  In addition, CO2 effectiveness is questionable -- or at least controversial -- judging by the current temperature plateau (a.k.a. ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’) that has lasted nearly 20 years -- and perhaps even much longer.   
My personal suggestion has been to create regions of cirrus near the tropopause by injecting water in the form of mist or droplets, leading to ice particles -- akin to contrails from aircraft.  The scheme would create regions of strong GH forcing and seem to fit the twin requirements of regionality and moderate lifetime.  How much water is needed?  How often to inject -- and other important but more detailed parameters?  Again, we need to learn by experimentation.
In my opinion, there is little doubt that a near-term cooling is among the major calamities facing the population on our planet; concern about global warming is entirely misplaced.  A Little Ice Age (DOB cooling) may arrive within decades -- perhaps much sooner.  The end of our warm Holocene inter-glacial is rapidly approaching.  There is no time to lose in preparing for survival.  A paradigm change is essential.
Instead of fiddling with apportionment of CO2 quotas among different nations, we should face realities: CO2 forcing of climate seems largely offset by internal atmospheric negative feedback. In any case, CO2 forcing is largely saturated spectroscopically; there is little chance of exceeding or even reaching the artificial temperature goal of 2 degrees that politicians have adopted.
No effective quota system will emerge at the forthcoming climate conference in Paris in December 2015, as long as developing nations, like India, aim to overcome poverty by assuring their citizens of reliable, secure, and cheap energy from fossil fuels. The United States needs to learn this lesson also.

Articles: Panic in Pittsburgh: Media Struggling to Ignore Black Mob Violence

Panic in Pittsburgh: Media Struggling to Ignore Black Mob Violence

Panic in Pittsburgh: Media Struggling to Ignore Black Mob Violence

Black people in Pittsburgh were feeling poorly about crime: Too many of them were in the news accused of killing, robbing, assaulting, jacking, shooting, stealing, rioting, breaking, burgling, harassing, intimidating, threatening, fighting, throwing, running, stoning, smoking, drinking, escaping, drugging, firing, and destroying.
So in 2011, black leaders got together to do something about it: Not stop the crime. Just stop reporters from letting us know about it.
Because it is a little-known fact of psychology that drawing attention to black crime actually causes more black crime -- which draws more attention, which creates more crime. And on and on until black crime is six, ten, 50, 100 times greater than white and asian crime.
Where it is today.
"If the only information about black people is what's in the news, there's a reason why unemployment rate is astronomic and why we have all these negative issues -- because the imaging of black people is extremely negative," said Black Political Empowerment Project president Tim Stevens. "Not only does it affect the viewpoint of white people with their thoughts on black people, I say it affects the psychology of black people.”
That quote comes from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, one of the many members of the local media that were eager participants in the “media summit” to do fewer stories about black criminals.
The editors got the message: It was okay to do stories on black colleges, black churches, black history, black hospitals, black religion, black fraternities, black funeral homes, black radio, black activists, black groups and -- above all, black victims of white racism. But black crime?
Flash forward to 2015: Large-scale black mob violence is now an accepted part of life in the Pittsburgh area. The latest example came last week, when hundreds of black people rioted outside of a carnival at St. Basil’s parish.
No one in the press called it a riot. Neither did they identify the hundreds of people involved as black. A few cops and residents took care of that in emails.
The parish cancelled the 40-year tradition permanently, for the “safety of its parishioners,” said the pastor. And oh yeah, black violence has been a fact of life in that neighborhood for a long time.
The local city councilmember said she is really, really sad about it, and had no idea why it happened, but she is pretty sure it was caused by not enough social programs. And as soon as she returns from an out of town conference where she is learning to do exactly that, she will fix it.
Not a word from police, politicians, or media that this kind of violence in Pittsburgh is a black thing. And happens wildly out of proportion.
These, of course, are the same folks eager to report on the latest black lives matter fairy tale from Ferguson or Staten Island or Texas.
But black on white crime?
The uprising at St. Basil is at least the ninth time this summer that black mob violence has erupted at a carnival or amusement park -- the second in Pittsburgh. Here’s a playlist with a few videos of the other recent events.
The first was the opening night at a local amusement park called Kennywood. Fighting in and out of the park led the authorities to 1) close the park early; and 2) deny anything was happening.
As for the videos that showed large numbers of black people fighting and creating mayhem, in and outside of the park, they were not telling the truth, said park officials.
Residents took to Twitter and Facebook and YouTube to put the event in perspective: Black violence at Kennywood is a problem today -- and has been for a long time.
“Everyone making fun of the riot at Kennywood were obviously not there,” said one park goer on Twitter. “Scariest (event) I’ve even seen/been in …”
Said another local: “I've lived in Pittsburgh my whole life and this is nothing new. I remember at least 20 years ago leaving Kennywood at the end of the night with my parents and being stuck in traffic in the shitty neighborhoods near the park with everyone else leaving at the same time. Groups of young black men would gather on the street corners near the park and hurl rocks and bottles at the cars while the traffic slowed to a crawl.”
Local media responded in a similar fashion to at least two cases of black mob violence at the Fourth of July holiday Regatta celebration in Pittsburgh. The night of the event, one TV news operation declared the large party was a “success” because there was no violence and everyone was happy.
It took a few days for that fairy tale to unwind. Norman Freeman saw a large group of black people attacking an Afghanistan military veteran and his wife during the regatta. He helped and broke a few fingers in the process.
WPXI-TV broadcast a video of the assault, with the features of all involved blurred to the point of being unrecognizable.
That is not to be confused with the group of black people who fought at the Regatta, then again later that evening when some of the combatants got off a bus.
In May, three black people attacked an old white dude. He’s in the hospital -- and “won’t recover,” said the headline from a local TV station. The same media outlet also said it was a “random” attack -- when in fact is was the opposite: Black on white crime and violence is not random, but predicable.
He just died.
Moving on… Earlier this year, there were several episodes of black mob violence near the Monroeville Mall, in a suburb of Pittsburgh. All documented in that scintillating best seller: Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.
The local TV news crews pieced together some of the action from April: Hundreds of “college kids” arriving on “school buses” to a “huge party” featuring large fights and gunfire at police. And of course lots of mayhem and property destruction.
Twenty neighboring police departments were called in to help quell this non-event.
And oh yeah, that has been happening for a long time at this mall.
But the fact that this was a black party for black students organized by black people and students came from black fraternities and sororities -- not a word. Here is a video collection of black mob violence in this area.
During Christmas season seven months ago, the same mall had to close early after hundreds of black people were fighting and rampaging destroying property. On video.
“What in the world went on there?” asked one TV anchor, pretending not to know. Even though 1000 “teenagers” were involved in the violence, the Monroeville police only needed help from five other departments.
In February, it happened again: A group of black people in Macy’s at the mall started fighting and firing guns. Tom and Mary Singleton were in the mall with their teenaged daughter. This white couple took several bullet wounds. On video.
Soon after, the mall banished “teenagers” without adult escorts.
A few days after that at a nearby shopping district called the Waterfront, a large group of black people threw rocks at police officers. One reporter figured it out: “A lot of teens have been coming here since the Monroeville mall no longer allows them there alone,” said a reporter for Action News 4. “It is a sight you will see more often. For police, the added patrols are necessary. The shopping area has suddenly been flooded with kids -- groups of them late at night and on weekends, creating chaos and crime.”
Kids. Kids. Kids.
Lots of reporters and victims and eye witnesses and shop keepers were talking about it, everything except the central organizing feature of the violence. The perps were black. The victims were not.
This is a long list: With lots of videos, lots of victims, lots of eyewitnesses, and lots of reporters and public officials who will do just about anything to ignore, deny, and excuse these episodes of black mob violence and black on white crime in Pittsburgh. And other places in the country over the past few days as well:
In St. Paul, over the weekend at the Rice Street Festival.
And Erie, Pennsylvania over the weekend at an eviction party.
And Indianapolis over the weekend, where large groups of black people fought and fired guns at police.
And Boston.
And Asbury Park, Thursday night.
And Madison, Wisconsin.
And Springfield, Missouri.
And back to Indy, near a county fair, with three cases of violence in three nights.
Or Hartford.
Back to Madison, for this news story.
And Virginia Beach.
What about Cleveland: The black lives matter mob attacked some cops.
Chicago: Police under attack, again.
Or Akron: A flash rob at a Circle K.
Or New Jersey: We Wildin’, they shouted.
And don’t forget the home of the Fighting Irish.
That’s a lot of video.
There’s a lot more. Recent. Ignored. Routine.
With all the black mob violence around the country, the criminals and their enablers in Pittsburgh must be in a panic. Despite their best efforts to the contrary, lots of people are starting to figure out that violence in America is a black thing.
All this attention must be doing irreparable psychological harm to the black people who commit the crimes. And to those who would have us ignore them.
Wrong, says former prison psychologist Marlin Newburn.
“Black street predators are merely living their preferred lifestyle where property destruction and primitive brutality bring them the sadistic entertainment and power they enjoy,” Newburn said. “What’s worse is that there is nobody in the mainstream media or in political office willing to step up in the light and call the community-killing exactly what it is. Worse yet, they outright lie about these black crimes by using some Orwellian newspeak to redirect accurate descriptions of the predators.
“Cowardice by the power elite fuels the carnage while hastening the death of business and communities. And more blacks will end up dead or in prison.
“As a prison psychologist I've talked with hundreds of young black predators who simply said they "was just havin' fun." They did not have a recognizable conscience, no thoughts of personal responsibility or feelings of guilt or empathy for their victims, nor did they remotely have a grasp of the pain and community destruction they and their "homeboys" caused. 
“Having the emotional maturity level of a pre-adolescent, ages 8 to 12 inclusive, they act on emotions, not thought. They are completely infantalized due to never being held accountable for their actions. Because of never having been taught delayed gratification and consideration of others, they also live and act on impulse, never thinking of possible consequences.
“They are classic narcissists where the world must conform to their impulses or demands.
“That the media and political powers are willing to turn a collective blind eye on the pathology helps black crime grow. It demonstrates a tacit acceptance of the mayhem.
“Not accurately reporting the willful destruction and assaults of others by black street predators is a form of caring in their eyes, but it's pathological altruism at its sickest. It's a very sick form of "understanding" under the belief that they are being compassionate toward their imagined put-upon black people as said black people live a libertine lifestyle.
“All they're doing is helping increase the insanity as the black predator knows he covered with a blanket anonymity, and that there is no one in power who will hold him personally responsible. Until they end up dead or in prison, they enjoy the predator lifestyle.” 

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Zimbabwe Reveals Shocking Truth About "Cecil the Lion" Animal Rights Groups Are Desperate to Cover Up

Zimbabwe Reveals Shocking Truth About "Cecil the Lion" Animal Rights Groups Are Desperate to Cover Up

Zimbabwe Reveals Shocking Truth About “Cecil the Lion” Animal Rights Groups Are Desperate to Cover Up

Both social media and the progressive mainstream media have been in an uproar over the past few days about the death of “Cecil,” a 13-year-old lion in Zimbabwe.
Cecil was killed in an organized licensed hunt by a big game hunter, Minnesota dentist Dr. Walter Palmer, who has now gone into hiding after receiving numerous death threats from outraged animal rights activists.

However, it would appear that the outrage surrounding the death of Cecil is what is commonly known as a “First World Problem,” as residents of Zimbabwe were mostly unaware of, and really don’t care about, the death of just another lion.
“What lion?” was the response of acting Information Minister Prisca Mupfumira, after being asked about the death of Cecil.
Though the government had yet to give an official response to the lion hunt, local authorities opened an investigation into whether the professional guides who led the hunt abided by the rules and regulations in place for such things.
According to Yahoo News, that hasn’t stopped angry animal rights and anti-hunting activists from ruining the life of Dr. Palmer, with some calling for his arrest, extradition and even death for hunting the lion with a bow and arrow and finishing it off with a gun.
But most people in Zimbabwe don’t care about the dead lion, as they have much greater problems to deal with, such as an 80 percent unemployment rate, insane monetary inflation and a hugely corrupt government.
“Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country,” said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. “What is so special about this one?”
The truth is, most locals in Zimbabwe actually look forward to the big game hunts that Westerners engage in, as the high price tag for the hunts means money pumped into the local economy, not to mention the meat from such hunts is required by law to be given to local tribes and villages.
“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father of two. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.”
Lions and other large animals are typically viewed as dangerous by the local population, and if these animals are not hunted, their populations will explode and bring about all sorts of other issues, like rampant disease and increased attacks on people.
If only as much outrage over a dead and dismembered lion were directed at those who kill and dismember hundreds of thousands of babies per year, our society might have a moral leg to stand on.