Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy criticized Republicans for supporting the global warming hoax and the carbon capture scheme that is being used to conduct eminent domain to seize land to build underground pipelines. He said that the US is subservient to the religion of climate and that “crony Republicans” are complicit in offering carbon capture subsidies in order to pass eminent domain laws that allow the seizure of farm land. People are affected every day by the climate cult.
Alex Jones reported that the Biden administration is spending $451 billion per year to pay for illegal alien and asylum seeker benefits to attract more people and then the benefits are cut off after a few months. Ramaswamy revealed that there is a federal law 287(g) that allows local law enforcement officers to serve warrants for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to help them remove illegal aliens in this country.
Top 15 Unbelievable Reasons That Prove Global Warming Might be a Hoax
Global Warming is the name given to the current belief that the earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing over the past few hundred years since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
The human impact on this is believed to only account for 10% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and as such, it is highly unlikely that we, as a species, are having a massive negative impact on the stability of the earth’s climate. In this article, we will be giving you 15 reasons that prove global warming might be a hoax.
Top 15 Unbelievable Reasons That Prove Global Warming Might be a Hoax
1. The climate of the earth is warming up rapidly
If you look at the HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, which is based in the UK, records show warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling to 2011. The increase in temperature between 1964 was the same rate as recorded between 1911 to 1941. Numerous satellites, ground stations, and weather balloons show recorded cooling since 2001.
The current warnings of a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees are nothing irregular and fit into the natural rate of the warming recorded over the last few centuries.
The placement of these global weather stations should be taken into account. They are mostly based in so-called heat islands in cities where temperatures are normally higher, and few have been placed in rural countryside locations.
Two teams have corrected the average temperature readings between all the stations and have reduced the reported increase in temperature by half since 1980. Up to today, there has never been any sort of significantly extreme event caused by warming.
There was global warming about a thousand years ago (Medieval Warm Period) – it’s a cyclic matter, no need for alarmism.
2. Reports show that the global climate has been cooling for the past 1000 years and recently, temperatures have skyrocketed
Throughout history, the climate of this planet has fluctuated greatly, many ancient people and religions alike talk about a great flood, which was probably caused by the melting ice caps or glaciers. Recorded history tells us of a warm period from around 1000 to 1200 AD, which allowed the Vikings to farm crops on Greenland. This was followed by the little ice age.
Since the end of the 17th century, the average global temperature has been rising at a steady rate, except for the period of 1940 to 1970 in which the climate cooled off, which in turn led to a global panic about global cooling!
Over a century, stratocumulus clouds forming off the coastlines can turn the global temperature up or down by a few degrees, and the “climate models” cannot predict which way it will go. (July 2018 issue of “Science).”
3. The rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been directly credited to the human species and greenhouse gasses, causing the current warming trend
The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has fluctuated due to various reasons over time. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased on average by roughly 120 parts per million. Most of this is linked to the human cause, and during the current century, the increase is approximately 0.55% per year.
See alsoCauses, Effects and Solutions to Global Dimming
Though there is absolutely no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As ancient ice core measurements have proven that CO2 levels in the past have often changed after a temperature drop or increase. Solid evidence exists that shows that as temperatures fluctuate naturally through solar radiation and other galactic and local influences, the warming of the surface levels of the planet results in more CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
The ratio of man-made CO2 to natural CO2 on Earth is about 1 to 2400. That means man’s portion is about 2 drops if a 12 ounce glass held Earth’s CO2.
Recent findings show Mt. Katla buried under a glacier in Iceland emits up to 24,000 tons CO2 per day; it’s possible that many more other sub-glacial volcanoes worldwide are dumping much more CO2 into the atmosphere. There are 40,000 miles of volcanically active mid-ocean ridges, of which only a tiny fraction has been mapped. That’s a real big thermal and CO2 output area we know little about.
4. The poles are warming, and ice caps are melting, apparently
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Temperatures at the poles have not increased since 2005. In fact, apart from the Palmer Peninsula, the entire Antarctic region is cooling down. Icecap thickness in the arctic and north poles are increasing in size and will continue to do so until things naturally warm up.
5. Computer models are being used to calculate the future impacts of CO2
These computer models are programmed to assume that CO2 is the largest climate driver and that the sun has little effect on the climate. These computer models can be programmed with a large number of variables in order to come to the conclusion that the earth will cool down or warm-up. A computer model is no way to measure anything, as it is purely a matter of who inputs the data for the model.
The sun is a major driver of the climate, with daily additions of solar radiation that are completely random and follow no pattern at all. These computer models do not take this into account and, therefore, do not give a true representation of the actual climate. And as such, they should not be used as a base for such claims.
6. The melting of natural glaciers proves global warming?
Glaciers have naturally receded and grown countless times throughout history. Recent glacier receding is simply an outcome of the warming planet after the little ice age of the early medieval period. Scientists have discovered evidence that the ice caps and glaciers have receded and increased in size on numerous occasions throughout history.
It is a normal thing for the glaciers to shrink and expand over time. Anyway, this is more driven by precipitation than temperature.
7. CO2 is a toxin?
A lot of people believe this, and it plays a part in many scientific studies from a purely theoretical standpoint. CO2 is just as important as nitrogen to the atmosphere.
CO2 plays a major role in the bringing about of life on earth, it is necessary for plant growth, and in some areas with higher levels of CO2, records show that some tree and plant life can grow at extraordinary rates. The assumption that CO2 is a pollutant is completely false.
Source: Canva
8. Global warming apparently will cause storms and extreme weather
These claims are completely baseless. No evidence exists of the weather being affected by global warming on a global scale. Regional variations do occur. Extreme weather can be affected by a large number of variables; things like the jet stream, for example, can change the weather for many seasons in different European countries. Even sand swept up from the Sahara desert can change the climate of the northernmost European nations.
See alsoVarious Human Activities That Affect an Ecosystem
Global warming has no impact on these weather systems. Some argue that global warming will lead to droughts across the world, but if global warming happens the way we are being told, there should be more moisture in the air all around us as the moisture evaporates due to high temperatures.
Considering that the earth’s climate has been forever changing since the formation of the planet. It didn’t stop just because our human race popped up. Even during our history, the earth’s climate has fluctuated from cold to hot and back again; we do what we have always done, and what life always does, we adapt.
Due to all the major increases in scientific and medical studies, our current lifespan is vastly superior to our ancestors, and this will continue to grow as time goes on.
10. Does CO2 form the largest part of the greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse effect causing gas forms roughly 3% of the volume of the atmosphere. 97% of which is water vapor and clouds, with the remaining percentages being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone, and N20. CO2 makes up about 0.4% of our atmosphere.
The small amounts of gasses in the atmosphere are capable of retaining the heat from solar radiation, but due to the relatively small amounts of them in comparison to the other 90% of water vapor. That 90% is believed to cause 75% of the greenhouse effect.
At their current levels, if water vapor were to increase just 3%, that would amount to the same level of the greenhouse effect as if CO2 increased by 100%.
11. “The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”
Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and more it added to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Plant growth and crop production also benefit from longer growing seasons and fewer frost events. Global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms.
The same holds true as per objective data for water supplies. As our planet warms, there is a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental landmasses. This results in enhanced precipitation, which means an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank.
If crop shortages, declining precipitation and declining soil moisture cause national security threats, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.
12. “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”
The pace of sea-level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even when global temperatures rose gradually. In recent decades, there has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea-level rise.
When utilizing 20th-century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea-level rise, then utilizing 21st-century technologies, humans will be much more equipped to adapt to global sea-level rise.
Although alarmists frequently point melting of polar ice sheets and a recent modest shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Since NASA precisely began measuring those 35 years ago with satellite instruments, cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all.
13. “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”
Extreme events such as severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such costs are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Therefore, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.
Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. If there was an increase in flooding activity, that is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.
Also, the modest recent warming is producing the U.S., and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.
14. 31,000 scientists say “no convincing evidence”
While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is “no convincing evidence” that humans can or will cause “catastrophic” heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
15. No Real Proof or Evidence
According to an article by the Huffington Post, President Donald Trump told the American public about his disbelief in climate change because he didn’t see any real evidence. This comment has been made by millions of other people since the 2016 election, and since the American President pulled out of the Paris Accords, an agreement signed by several countries to change their environmental practices.
Geo-engineering scientists working on blocking the sun’s rays to cool the planet say that: “Even if we completely stopped carbon dioxide emissions today, the earth will continue warming over the next several decades.”
A project conducted by Harvard University scientists and funded largely by Microsoft founder Bill Gates to test sun-dimming technology to cool global warming is quietly moving forward in Sweden.
We know what you’re thinking – this can’t be real… but it is.
Reuters reports that the Harvard project “plans to test out a controversial theory that global warming can be stopped by spraying particles into the atmosphere that would reflect the sun’s rays.”
In Sweden, plans to fly a test balloon next year are already underway.
The test balloon will not release any particles into the atmosphere, but “could be a step towards an experiment, perhaps in the autumn of 2021 or spring of 2022.”
Those experiments may see “up to 2 kg of non-toxic calcium carbonate dust” released into the atmosphere.
Bill Gates Plan to Dim the Sun is a Bad Idea
Bill Gates is living proof that just because you once did something very smart to make your mark on the world, it doesn’t necessarily make you a smart person.
Having the gall to play God by dimming the sun’s rays and thinking it won’t lead to drastic and unpredictable problems makes that case rather obvious.
Reuters notes the project – called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) – is playing with “something with potentially large and hard-to-predict risks, such as shifts in global rain patterns.”
“There is no merit in this test except to enable the next step,” said Niclas Hällström, director of the Swedish green think-tank WhatNext? said.
He added, “You can’t test the trigger of a bomb and say ‘This can’t possibly do any harm.’”
Social-engineering fan Bill Gates made news earlier this month when he wanted to figuratively dim the sun on society by suggesting pandemic lockdowns could and should be extended.
The tech nerd expressed support for shutting down bars and restaurants for up to an additional six months, and indicated lockdowns may continue all the way into 2022.
“Certainly, by the summer will be way closer to normal than we are now, but even through early 2022, unless we help other countries get rid of this disease and we get high vaccinations rates in our country, the risk of reintroduction will be there,” Gates warned CNN anchor Jake Tapper.
Many Americans have shown they aren’t willing to continue with the lockdown charade. We’re not sure how many will be thrilled with Gates being the ruler of the sun either.
New discoveries in the Valley of the Kings, looted art from Venezuela and evidence that humans were in Central America more than 20,000 years ago are just some of the stories Live Science will be watching out for in 2020.
Tombs of pharaohs and queens in Valley of the Kings
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Egypt’s Valley of the Kings, which holds the tomb of King Tut and other Egyptian royalty, divulged several of its secrets in 2019, including a workshop complex, mummification cache, ostraca (pottery with writing on it) and newfound mummies. Excavations were carried out in both the east and west valleys of the Valley of the Kings and was funded in part by media companies that are paying for the right to film the excavations.
Excavations in the east and west valleys of the royal cemetery are ongoing; the artifacts found in 2019 are still being analyzed, and hieroglyphic writing on the ostraca is in the process of being deciphered. With all this work going on, it’s likely that more discoveries will be made in the Valley of the Kings in 2020. Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian antiquities minister who is leading work in the valley, believes that several tombs built for the pharaohs and their queens have yet to be found.
Smelly problem ahead
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The melting of permafrost in the Arctic and sub-Arctic is causing the remains of both humans and animals to thaw and decompose, giving local inhabitants a smelly problem to deal with.
The re-emergence of smallpox and other now-extinct diseases from these corpses is generally regarded by scientists as being extremely unlikely, and the World Health Organization (WHO) says that corpses don’t usually pose a major health problem. Even so, the emerging corpses bring with them some other issues. For instance, the corpses will inevitably smell and, if the dethawing corpses are underneath a building that humans still use, the corpses need to be dug up and re-interred to get rid of the smell. Additionally, if the corpses are near a water supply there is a risk of water becoming contaminated and causing illnesses such as gastroenteritis, according to the WHO.
Sweden is grappling with this problem on a growing scale. Centuries ago, there was a tradition in Sweden where people preferred to be buried under the floors of churches. However, as Earth’s temperature warms, these bodies are starting to thaw and decay. This problem can be exacerbated when churches install modern-day heating equipment that can warm a church more effectively (making it easier for corpses to thaw).
The problems associated with the thawing of long-buried bodies will likely get more attention in 2020 in the Arctic and sub-Arctic.
Archaeological treasure awaits at El-Assasif
(Image credit: Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities)
In 2019, archaeologists discovered 30 sealed wooden coffins, their mummies still intact, in the ancient necropolis of El-Assasif near Luxor, Egypt. Dating back around 3,000 years, the haul of coffins has been called a “cachette of the priests” because some of the mummies are those of priests.
The decorations on the coffins are well preserved and none of the tombs had been robbed; grave looting in Egypt has been a common occurrence in both ancient and modern times, so to find 30 coffins and their mummies all untouched by grave robbers is extremely rare.
Archaeologists are continuing their excavations at El-Assasif. They are also analyzing the cachette in greater detail, translating the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the coffins and learning more about the mummies within. In 2020, they will likely dig up even more discoveries from this necropolis. Hopefully any new finds will also be untouched by looters.
Lost art of Venezuela
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The situation in Venezuela is dire. Lack of food, medicine and rising violence all occurring after the country’s economic collapse has left the country in a terrible state. In 2018, Nicolás Maduro, the country’s president, was re-elected in what the country’s opposition said was a fraudulent vote, leading to a standoff between Maduro and the country’s opposition parties led by Juan Guaidó. The Brookings Institute estimates that more than 4.5 million people have fled Venezuela, a number that may jump to 6 million by the end of 2020.
While the world’s attention has, understandably, being focused on the humanitarian crisis and political strife, there is evidence that Venezuela’s rich historical treasures are being lost. Live Science has monitored large shipments of art leaving Venezuela. Documents from the U.S. Census Agency showed that in 2018 more than $12 million in art and antiques were shipped from Venezuela to the United States; and there are signs that some of this was stolen.
In September 2019, the Associated Press reported that the FBI was investigating stolen art from Venezuela that is being trafficked abroad. Venezuela’s opposition, led by Guaidó, claims that members of Maduro’s government are stealing the country’s art and selling it for their own personal benefit. Whether these claims are true or not is unclear.
In 2020, we can expect to hear more about the loss of Venezuela’s heritage.
Humans in Central America more than 20,000 years ago?
(Image credit: Daniel Eskridge/Shutterstock)
Live Science is aware of new research that suggests humans reached Central America more than 20,000 years ago. This would have occurred at a time when glaciers covered much of North America.
If this research is verified, it would be the oldest evidence for humans south of Alaska in the Americas. The new evidence the scientific team found includes a sizable number of stone tools as well as organic remains found in a cave. Various dating methods are being used to determine the age of the artifacts.
Previously, claims have been made of humans venturing south of Alaska before 20,000 years ago, though these claims have been found to be false or questionable. The scientists of the new study are aware of this and are taking the time to conduct additional fieldwork and analysis before publishing or widely disseminating their results.
If all goes well, this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal sometime in 2020, and scientists not affiliated with the project will have a chance to evaluate its accuracy.
Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For?
Global warming and climate change alarmists harp on about “dangerously high” manmade CO2 output levels. So how much are they? The answer will shock you.
You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming started around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way.
Yet, despite all the publicity it has gotten, it has still failed to make clear a very fundamental point: exactly how much and what percentage of carbon or specifically CO2 (carbon dioxide) does humanity contribute to the atmosphere?
If man is really driving global warming (now conveniently called “climate change”), surely this level must be pretty high or at least significant, right? The answer may shock you … and give new meaning to the term global warming hoax.
Manmade CO2 Output Levels … Straight out of the IPCC’s Mouth
One of the difficult things about ascertaining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. Which one do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side uses one set of data to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its (diametrically opposed) point?
To bypass this dilemma, we are going to get the figures straight of the horse’s mouth so to speak by using data from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not a scientific body as you may imagine but rather a political one with a very clear bias towards promoting AGW and climate change alarmism.
It’s their job to push the AGW agenda onto the public, even though they disguise that with claims that they “provide rigorous and balanced scientific information.”
“IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC.
“In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government.
“Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government. …
“The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.”
“Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake.”
CO2 in the Atmosphere
Here are the simple facts. Earth’s atmosphere consists of the following gases at the following levels:
Nitrogen (N) – 78%
Oxygen (O) – 21%
Argon (Ar) – 0.9%
Trace Gases – 0.1%
So far, so good. CO2 is a gas in such small concentrations that it hasn’t yet entered the picture. So, the next step is to break down the composition of trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere:
Water Vapor (H2O) – 95% of trace gases / 0.95% of overall atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of overall atmosphere
Neon (Ne) – 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of overall atmosphere
There are also some gases at tiny concentrations, including helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind which have damaged ozone.
Water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC chooses to ignore it! Check out these tables below where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other AGW proponents claim they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies so much from region to region.
Yes, it does vary greatly all over the Earth, but to just exclude the largest greenhouse gas (and a massive driver of temperature too) from your calculations because it’s inconvenient or varies too much is grossly misleading and unscientific.
A pie chart typical of one used by the IPCC and AGW proponents. Water vapor, despite being the overwhelmingly largest greeenhouse and trace gas, is simply ignored and omitted.
Humanity’s Contribution to CO2 Levels
To recap: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide makes up 3-4% of these trace gases, so therefore CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call it 3%, so CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere.
That’s pretty damn small, but we can’t stop there, because the next question to ask is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting sets of data here, but both are within a small range of each other, either 3.0% (using the 2007 figures) or 3.6% (using the 2001 figures):
Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from 2001)
Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from AR4, 2007)
No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%.
The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%.
Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%
So here’s the bottom line. According to the IPCC’s own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.
CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.
The IPCC Can’t Deal with Water Vapor
The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can’t actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no “confidence.”
“Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes … because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.”
It doesn’t suit the IPCC’s agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It’s far easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead.
Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion
The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth’s eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists’ attention away from the true issues that need addressing. Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment?
What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons’ Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs?
What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have real MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?
The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations.
These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks.
Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It’s time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren’t interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it.
SUMMARY: Global warming is a theory with four components:
1. The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption;
2. Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect;
3. If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and
4. The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom.
We reject the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming for three reasons:
1. It is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benfit from the alleged solution to the alledged problem.
2. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. This is contrary to The Creed of Freedom, paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarioan government based on collectivism.
Exposing the Myths
Analysis by G. Edward Griffin
Myth 1.
Leaders of the crusade against global-warming have no financial conflict-of-interest because they only care about the environment, but those who challenge their theories do so because they are paid by the fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries.
ANALYSIS: There is no doubt that the rank-and-file, true believers in global-warming are motivated by a desire to protect the environment, but those at the top are not so naïve. They know that the specter of environmental disaster is a made-up horror story to frighten us into accepting crushing taxes and a global totalitarian system in the name of saving the planet. How do we know that? Because they say so.
Ottmar Edenhoffer, an official at the UN’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was a former co-chair if the IPCC Working Group III and lead author of the IPPC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. His report concluded:
One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. … One has to free one’s self from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy…. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” (Story) (Cached) (Original in German)
For an eye-opening summary of the meaning of “green” in the environmental movement (it means money), see “Climate Policy as Political Entrepreneurship”, uploaded to the University of Utah website here. (Cached)
MYTH2. Temperatures have risen since 1998, and reports to the contrary are false.
ANALYSIS: One of the most troublesome facts challenging the theory of global warming is that, even according to UN sources and in spite of data manipulation, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. The dire predictions of increasing temperatures simply have not been validated by nature.
By 2014, this was damaging the credibility of the myth makers and causing skepticism in the public mind. Something had to be done to restore confidence in the global-warming narrative − and, with the Paris Climate Summit scheduled to begin in November of 2015, it had to be done fast in order to have an impact on the proceedings there.
In June of that year, an article appeared in Science magazine, written by a nine-man team at the Environmental Information office of the tax-funded National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This article was exactly what was needed. It said that the reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming was an error − and it had data and charts to prove it.
Because this article came with the imprimatur of NOAA, it well served the purposes of the Paris Conference. Afterward, however, it was learned that the article was politically inspired, and the authors had violated numerous principles of scientific inquiry. That was the conclusion of a former top scientist at NOAA itself, Dr John Bates who, in 2014, was awarded a gold medal by the Obama administration for his work in setting standards for producing and preserving climate data.
Bates said that all the scientific standards he had helped to establish at NOAA had been violated to produce a politically useful document at the Paris Climate Summit. The lead author of the article, Thomas Karl, had insisted on “decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global-warming pause, and rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Dr. Bates said that the NOAA team used fraudulent data, applied methods of analysis that overstated the speed of warming, relied on software that was known to be inaccurate, never submitted data for verification by others, and failed to archive the data, making it now impossible to examine. In other words, they lied and then destroyed the evidence.
MYTH3. Global warming is caused by pollution and weather-modification programs. Therefore, it IS man-made.
2016 Nov 18 from Nikeros
To Ed Griffin:
You don’t believe that Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations involving gawd knows what, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else worldwide and on and on has no effect on the earths climate? Ok fine. I will say no more.
ANALYSIS: The anthropomorphic mantra of most global-warming proponents is that the “man-made” cause is CO2. Period. They claim that CO2 is the byproduct of industry and consumption and that it produces a “carbon footprint”. Therefore, they seek expanded government power and funding to reduce CO2. That’s the basis for all the carbon-tax and regulatory nonsense. None of these people are talking about taxing or regulating “Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”. They talk only about CO2, the non-toxic greenhouse gas that does NOT cause global warming. The global-warming hoaxers are very good at lumping together pollution (which is real) and man-made global warming (which is not). They are countng on us to fall for the trick and fail to see that these are two entirely different issues.
In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today’s so-called “science skeptics” are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan’s) who celebrate “skeptical” thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone’s right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.
As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the “cult of scientism”).
Real skepticism means questioning everything… especially the status quo
A real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable. But far too many of today’s infamous “skeptics” (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of “science.” And they’re offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.
“I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists,” explains Horgan. “When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber.”
I’ve seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I’ve seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I’ve also seen “raw foodies” at festivals swearing that their “water vortexer machines” could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.
In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects. A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I’ve observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called “experts” are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.
My experience as a food research scientist has taught me to distrust everything by default
As a food scientist and lab science director of CWC Labs where I conduct food analysis via ICP-MS, LC/MS-TOF and other instruments, I’ve become even more skeptical of the mainstream natural products industry over the last few years.
Take note of the massive scam of commercial almond milk sold in grocery stores. Such products contain almost no almonds at all. Instead, they’re thickened with carageenan and made to look milky white by the addition of an inorganic mineral compound called calcium carbonate — ground up rocks! This calcium carbonate, when consumed in large quantities, can cause extreme bone pain, kidney calcification and may even contribute to the calcification of arteries. Yet it’s added to a so-called “natural” health product that people are drinking in huge quantities while thinking they’re being smart about their health. Truth be told, you’d be far better off drinking raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk than commercial almond milk.
I’ve also seen so much pollution in “natural” products — including toxic heavy metals and alarming quantities of pesticides and herbicides in supposedly “clean” products — that I’ve reached the point where my own food manufacturing operation now rejects 80% of the raw material lots we test. (See my upcoming book Food Forensics for detailed ICP-MS analysis revealing the heavy metals concentrations in over 800 foods, supplements and spices.)
Similarly, I find myself rejecting 80% of the total B.S. science nonsense reported by the scientifically illiterate mainstream media… (and sometimes even the “science” media). I’ve literally seen seemingly credible reports in the mainstream media that claim the most ludicrous science nonsense, including claims that cars can be “powered” by air and that cell phones can be “powered” by water. The air powered cars stories always neglect to mention that the air must be pressurized by some other energy source; usually coal-generated electricity that’s used to power the compressors in the first place.
I’ve also seen the Associated Press falsely report that all mercury has been removed from all vaccines in America (blatantly false), and I’ve seen the obedient Monsanto-puppet media (i.e. Forbes.com, a propaganda rag steeped in utterly false journalism) report ridiculous claims such as asserting that glyphosate disintegrates quickly in the food supply. In truth, this cancer-causing weed killer survives food processing and human digestion, showing up in both urine and breast milk, fully intact in its original molecular form.
So why is there no skepticism among “skeptics” about the food chain persistence of pesticides? The false diagnosis hoax of mammography? The lunatic quack medicine diagnosis of “psychiatric disorders” that are treated with mind-bending psychiatric drugs? Or even the scientifically proven fact that some children are seriously harmed by certain vaccines, most notably HPV vaccines?
As Horgan writes in Scientific American:
“The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food… Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I’ll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I’ll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all.
Real scientists reject the cult of scientism
What Horgan is doing is, dare we say, exercising REAL scientific skepticism. He’s refusing to sign up for the “cult of scientism” that all the other closed-minded skeptics obediently follow as their dogmatic mental prison.
Horgan understands that legitimate science is a process, not a belief system. “Science” isn’t belief in vaccines, GMOs, chemotherapy and global warming. Those are conclusions, not processes. Real science is a process of discovery; and that process must be subjected to questioning and criticism, or it isn’t science at all.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Real science is a PROCESS, not a set of conclusions. Any “scientific” belief system which rejects critical questioning isn’t based in real science at all. It’s just dogma.
This explains why the entire vaccine industry — as it is fraudulently promoted today — isn’t scientific at all. Vaccine propaganda is founded in a dogmatic belief system that demands absolute obedience to political vaccine narratives while rejecting even the slightest questions or criticisms about vaccine ingredients, vaccine safety, vaccine adverse events or vaccine efficacy.
For example, merely asking the question of why flu shots still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury — that’s over 25,000 times the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water — earns you widespread ridicule and condemnation. And yet the mercury is still being injected into children. Yet the entire vaccine propaganda establishment rejects even the hint of discussion of mercury in vaccines, pretending it doesn’t exist.
By the way, how do I know for sure that flu shots still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury? Because I tested flu shots myself via ICP-MS. How accuracy is my testing via ICP-MS? My lab was recently awarded a certificate of excellence for producing extremely accurate results in a blind water contamination proficiency test involving 323 laboratories.
The vaccine establishment, as Natural News readers well know, is practicing delusional thinking masquerading as science. It’s just as delusional as so-called “psychic surgeons” who claim to pull diseased liver parts out of a patient’s body (which later turn out to be chicken livers, go figure…). Any real skeptic, upon observing the quackery, propaganda and blatant deception of the vaccine industry, would have to conclude that the way vaccines are formulated, approved and promoted today makes a mockery of science.
More “science” B.S. is readily found in the fields of physics and medicine, too
Speaking on the subject of computing and AI systems, Horgan explains, “The Singularity is an apocalyptic cult, with science substituted for God. When high-status scientists promote flaky ideas like the Singularity and multiverse, they hurt science. They undermine its credibility on issues like global warming.”
Of course, Horgan may not yet understand that belief in man-made global warming as the primary cause for rising CO2 levels is also based on a politicized science cult. But that’s not even the point. I don’t expect other scientists to arrive at the same conclusions I’ve reached. What I do expect, however, is that scientists should honor the process of critical scientific thinking. If they honor the process, they will eventually reach the correct conclusions on subjects such as man-made global warming, vaccine safety problems, the total con job of statin drugs and so on.
On medicine, Horgan nails it. He gets the fact that today’s medical screening system is largely a fraud:
Over the past half-century, physicians and hospitals have introduced increasingly sophisticated, expensive tests. They assure us that early detection of disease will lead to better health.
But tests often do more harm than good. For every woman whose life is extended because a mammogram detected a tumor, up to 33 receive unnecessary treatment, including biopsies, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. For men diagnosed with prostate cancer after a PSA test, the ratio is 47 to one. Similar data are emerging on colonoscopies and other tests.
He’s also right on the mark when it comes to psychiatric drugs and their fraudulent marketing:
Over the last few decades, American psychiatry has morphed into a marketing branch of Big Pharma. I started critiquing medications for mental illness more than 20 years ago, pointing out that antidepressants like Prozac are scarcely more effective than placebos.
In retrospect, my criticism was too mild. Psychiatric drugs help some people in the short term, but over time, in the aggregate, they make people sicker.
He also exposes the total fraud of so-called “gene discoveries” that ridiculously claim genes have been discovered for things like gay-ness or intelligence:
Another hard target that needs your attention is behavioral genetics, which seeks the genes that make us tick. I call it gene-whiz science, because the media and the public love it.
Over the past several decades, geneticists have announced the discovery of “genes for” virtually every trait or disorder. We’ve had the God gene, gay gene, alcoholism gene, warrior gene, liberal gene, intelligence gene, schizophrenia gene, and on and on.
None of these linkages of single genes to complex traits or disorders has been confirmed. None!
Much of what you’re told today under the banner of “science” is complete bulls–t
Horgan has come to the same conclusion that I’ve reached through a different path: Much of what we are taught today under the banner of “science” is complete bunk. Some of it is sheer hucksterism, and a lot of it qualifies as criminal fraud.
At the top of that list of science frauds is, of course, vaccines. As I’ve exhaustively documented here on Natural News, many popular vaccines (flu shots, measles, mumps) simply don’t work at all. Shockingly, outright admissions of a complete lack of scientific testing of the efficacy of such vaccines is admitted on their insert sheets. The Flulaval vaccine insert sheet, for example, admits there are “No controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza” among people being injected with the vaccine.
Yet despite these extraordinary admissions of lack of efficacy, vaccine research fraud and the known toxicity of vaccine ingredients (which still include formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and MSG), the systematic rejection of such evidence by vaccine promoting “science skeptics” borders on the fringe of mental illness. These are not scientists at all… they are con artists and criminals — like Poul Thorsen, a fugitive from justice who was once a CDC researcher — pretending to be scientists.
As a real scientist, I’ve dared to ask 21 questions we’re never allowed to ask about vaccines. Such questions are based on reason and rationality. They include commonsense questions such as, “If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?”
It is notable that the entire vaccine establishment not only refuses to answer such questions; they consider the mere act of questioning vaccine dogma to be blasphemy. The demand for absolute obedience to the false narratives surrounding vaccines has reached such a fever pitch that anyone can now see it’s no longer based in science at all. It is a kind of religious fervor put on by deranged zealots who claim an intellectual monopoly over all things related to vaccines. This phenomenon is, in a very real way, a “scientific dictatorship” — an apt oxymoron to describe today’s juxtaposition of conformist demands and so-called “scientific evidence.”
Hint: If you aren’t allowed to ask questions about the evidence, it isn’t evidence at all. It’s dogma, plain and simple. Vaccine proponents, as they operate today, are faith-based dogmatists who don’t need any legitimate evidence because they BELIEVE in vaccines. Their belief is so strong that it outweighs all evidence contrary to their current beliefs. And in case you didn’t notice, what I’ve just described here is a cult, not a science.
Vaccine “science” is a massive con job
The other huge con job found in vaccines is described thusly: Vaccines only “work” on those who don’t need them. In other words, when vaccines do work, they do so by initiating an immune response to a weakened virus that’s introduced into the body. This response requires an active and complex immune system that’s functioning well… the same kind of immune system, in other words, that could ward off an infection of a live virus encountered in the wild.
Meanwhile, people who have suppressed immune systems and are therefore extremely vulnerable to infections in the wild also happen to have extremely poor (and sometimes completely nullified) responses to vaccines. They don’t build antibodies, in other words, so the vaccines don’t work for them (they are non-efficacious).
In order to make vaccines “work” better on those with weakened immune systems, vaccine manufacturers add adjuvant chemicals that are irritants which cause excessive inflammation in the hope of eliciting a stronger immune response. While this may help some people, it also carries a very real risk of causing inflammatory damage to the neurology of some children who receive these vaccines. The results, as borne out by the vaccine adverse events databases and Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, is a growing number of children who are maimed, neurological damaged, put into comas or even killed by vaccines.
The entire “skeptics” cult of modern medicine denies any of this is happening, and that’s one reason why the skeptics are increasingly seen as high-functioning idiots who are possibly vaccine damaged themselves. Zealotous hate-bloggers like Doctor David Gorski — a psychopathic, mentally ill vaccine promoter who also carries out cancer surgery on African-American victims in Detroit — now characterize the skeptics cult, a cabal of mentally deranged lunatics and gay sex fetish seekers like James Randi who was caught on tape soliciting sex from a young man.
Richard Dawkins, for his part, is also an anti-consciousness cultist who believes in the irrational dualism that no other humans on this planet are conscious beings other than himself. Everybody else, he claims, is an unconscious biological robot suffering under the illusion of self awareness.
Meet three real scientists we need to empower to ask more questions of the scientific establishment
What kind of people do we really need to see more of in the realm of scientific skepticism? People like Rupert Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free. Sheldrake’s work is transformative, as it challenges the underlying non-scientific assumptions of modern science.
We also need more people like Gilbert Welch, author of Less Medicine, More Health. This book challenges the seven false assumptions of modern medicine.
Another extraordinary scientist who deserves our support is Dr. David Lewis, author of Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits. Dr. Lewis was maliciously attacked, discredited and ultimately thrown out of the government-funded scientific establishment for the simple reason that he questioned the safety of toxic biosludge — recycled human and industrial waste that’s sold as “organic fertilizer” to be spread on home gardens, childrens’ playgrounds and city parks. (I am currently investigating biosludge in my laboratory and will have some truly shocking, mind-blowing results to share with everyone this summer… you won’t believe what’s in this crap…)
The other thing we need, quite frankly, is independent scientists like myself who are conducting cutting edge, truly independent science, without any financial ties to governments, corporations or academia. My science lab, which has now passed our ISO 17025 accreditation audit, is free to pursue precisely the kind of scientific analysis of food and medicine that is blackballed or censored in the government-funded scientific community. Other scientists would lose their jobs if they pursued the kind of science I’m pursuing on a daily basis with absolute freedom.
Notably, this makes me a rare practitioner of real, independent science and a protector of the very kind of independent skepticism and scientific analysis that should be embraced by any system of knowledge that’s based on legitimate science. Yet the science I’m conducting is widely considered a threat to the scientific establishment, precisely because I’m willing to analyze vaccines for heavy metals and organic chemicals, for example. Such research is simply not allowed by the cult of scientism (the vaccine zealots) because they depend on widespread ignorance of vaccine composition to continue parlaying their fraudulent lies about vaccine safety.
I honor scientists who pursue a rigorous process of critical thinking… and I despise obedient status quo cultists
John Horgan might not yet be aware of the full story on vaccines, so he might disagree with me on such conclusions. But that’s not the point. I honor Horgan’s commitment to asking big questions. In fact, I honor those who vehemently disagree with me as long as they are following a process of authentic inquiry and open-minded skepticism.
What I despise is science cultists, dogmatic science propagandists and the worship of the “high priests” of science such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who can only be described as a “sciency” sleight-of-mind huckster who has more in common with stage illusionist David Copperfield than, say, Richard Feynman.
Tyson, like Dawkins, is a cultist. He has zero intellectual integrity and has sold out to the tribal dogmatists who spin tall tales of irrational mysticism that currently pass for “accepted science.”
For my part, I don’t claim to have all the answers — no human mind can possibly dare to claim a full understanding of the mysteries of nature (or the mind of God, for that matter). But as a real scientist, I’m willing to skeptically explore the evidence on just about anything. I don’t reject entire fields of scientific inquiry merely because they are taboo. It doesn’t mean I’m a sucker for silly claims, just that I’m intelligent and humble enough to realize that nature is far more mysterious than any human mind can possibly grasp. And we have much more to learn… many more scientific discoveries to make in the years ahead.
For example, psychic phenomena are often called “paranormal.” But what if they are so commonplace that they’re actually normal? Why can’t we study things like pets somehow anticipating the random arrivals of their owners many minutes in advance? Or mothers having a seemingly intuitive emotional connection to their children even when separated by distance? Why can’t we study dream premonition? Consciousness after biological death? Or even the possibility that the brain is a “quantum antenna” that can receive information transmitted from other conscious sources, transmitted by a quantum entanglement mechanism that Einstein described as “spooky action at a distance?”
If we are true scientists, we must at least BE CURIOUS about the nature of the universe and the apparent consciousness we seem to experience inside that universe. The minute we lose curiosity and decide we have all the answers, we cease being scientists at all. At that point, we just become mentally incapacitated dogmatic fools… like Dawkins and Randi, two people whom history will judge as being not just unwise hucksters, but even for slowing the progress of human knowledge into realms of understanding that are viciously attacked by “skeptics” today.
I often wonder just how many people have died needlessly due to the malicious “skepticism” of info-terrorist David Gorski or the Quackwatch propagandist Stephen Barrett. How many cases of cancer could have been prevented or reversed by natural and complementary medicine? How many studies might have been conducted in the pursuit of natural cures if not for the vicious, aggressive assaults on scientific curiosity being waged by “cult of scientism” intellectual bigots?
We’ll never know the answer to that question, but at least a few people like John Horgan are willing to start asking some legitimate questions about the false assumptions of “skeptics.” Have no doubt that Horgan himself will be maliciously slandered, attacked, defamed, censored and lied about for daring to ask such questions. The one thing today’s bulls–t scientific establishment cannot tolerate is actual skepticism. It threatens the cultist beliefs of the faithful “scientism” worshippers, you see…
California’s first significant snow storm of 2014 hit the Sierras on Wednesday and Thursday, dumping up to 2 feet of snow, with a melted water equivalent of up to two inches. However, this modest snowstorm was not enough to keep the Sierra snowpack from recording its lowest snow amounts in more than 50 years of record keeping during Thursday’s Sierra Snow Survey. The survey found a snow pack that was only 12% of normal for this time of year. Until Thursday, the lowest statewide snowpack measurement at this time of year was 21% of average, in 1991 and 1963, according to the Los Angeles Times. Since snowpack in the Sierras forms a crucial source of water for California, the dismal snow survey results are a huge concern.
Figure 1. Frank Gehrke, chief of the California Cooperative Snow Survey Program for the Department of Water Resources, walks leaves a snow covered meadow after the second snow survey of the year near Echo Summit, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 30, 2014. Despite the overnight snow storm the survey showed the snow depth at 12.4 inches with a water content of only 1.4 inches for this location at this time of the year. Gehrke said that while the recent snow fall will help, it is not enough to impact the water supply.(AP Photo)
The forecast: little drought relief in sight
One of the most persistent and intense ridges of high pressure ever recorded in North America has been anchored over the West Coast since December 2012. While the ridge has occasionally broken down and allowed low pressure systems to leak though, these storms have mostly brought spotty and meager precipitation to California, resulting in California’s driest year on record during 2013. January 2014 could well be its driest January on record. The ridge inevitably builds back after each storm, clamping down on any moisture reaching the state. Since rain-bearing low pressure systems tend to travel along the axis of the jet stream, these storms are being carried along the axis of the ridge, well to the north of California and into Southeast Alaska, leaving California exceptionally dry. The latest runs of the GFS and European models show that the ridge is now building back, and it appears likely that California will see no significant precipitation until at least February 7. A weak upper level low will move along the coast on Sunday and spread some light rain along the immediate coast, but this precipitation will generally be less than 0.25″–too little to have any significant impact on the drought. The ridge will not be as intense when it builds back, though, which gives me some hope that a low pressure system will be able to break the ridge by mid-February and bring the most significant rains of the winter rainy season to California.
Worst California drought in 500 years?
UC Berkeley paleoclimatologist B. Lynn Ingram, author of “The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climatic Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow”, said in an interview, “this could potentially be the driest water year in 500 years.” Her research on tree rings shows that California has not experienced such an extreme drought since 1580. “If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren’t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.” It’s no wonder, then, that the overall agricultural impact of the drought could reach $1 billion this year, according to the Fresno-based Westlands Water District.
California’s drought woes are part of an on-going 14-year Western U.S. drought that began in 2000, and peaked between 2000 – 2004. A 2012 study titled, Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America, found that the 2000 – 2004 drought was the most severe Western North America event of its kind since the last mega drought over 800 years ago, during the years 1146 – 1151. The paper analyzed the latest generation of climate models used for the 2013 IPCC report, which project that the weather conditions that spawned the 2000 – 2004 drought will be the new normal in the Western U.S. by 2030, and will be considered extremely wet by the year 2100. If these dire predictions of a coming “megadrought” are anywhere close to correct, it will be extremely challenging for the Southwest U.S. to support a growing population in the coming decades.
Megadroughts in the Western U.S. can develop from natural causes, as well, and the current pattern of cooler than average ocean temperatures in the Eastern Pacific and warmer than average ocean temperatures in the Atlantic increase the odds of drought conditions like the ones we have seen during the current megadrought. Edward Cook, director of the Tree Ring Laboratory at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., said at a presentation last month at the American Geophysical Union meeting that tree ring data show that the area of the West that was affected by severe drought in the Medieval period was much higher and much longer than the current drought. It is “indeed pretty scary,” Cook said. “One lasted 29 years. One lasted 28 years. They span the entire continental United States.” Two megadroughts in the Sierra Nevada of California lasted between 100 and 200 years. Bobby Magill at Climate Center has more on Dr. Cook’s presentation in a post, Is the West’s Dry Spell Really a Megadrought?
Figure 3. Normalized precipitation over Western North America (five-year mean) from 22 climate models used to formulate the 2013 IPCC report, as summarized by Schwalm et al., 2012, Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America. The horizontal line marks the precipitation level of the 2000 – 2004 drought, the worst of the past 800 years. Droughts of this intensity are predicted to be the new normal by 2030, and will be considered an outlier of extreme wetness by 2100. The paper states: “This impending drydown of western North America is consistent with present trends in snowpack decline as well as expected in-creases in aridity and extreme climate events,including drought, and is driven by anthropogenically forced increases in temperature with coincident increases in evapotranspiration and decreases in soil moisture. Although regional precipitation patterns are difficult to forecast, climate models tend to underestimate the extent and severity of drought relative to available observations. As such, actual reductions in precipitation may be greater than shown. Forecasted precipitation patterns are consistent with a probable twenty-first century megadrought.” Image credit: Schwalm et al., 2012, Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America, Nature Geoscience 5, 551-555, Published online 29 JULY 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1529, www.nature.com/naturegeoscience.
If There’s Global Warming…Why Is It So Cold?
It’s been top-ten coldest January on record in the Upper Midwest, and much colder than average over much of the Eastern U.S. However, the that isn’t the case over other portions of the globe, including the Western U.S. and Alaska. Wunderground’s weather historian Christopher C. Burt analyzes the situation in his latest post, How Cold has this January been in the U.S.? He concludes, “this January’s average temperature nationally has probably been close to normal since the western half of the nation has been almost as much above average as the eastern half was below average. The only region that will most likely have experienced a TOP 10 coldest January will be the Upper Midwest.” In the U.S., only four stations set all-time low minimum temperature records in January, compared to 34 that set all-time high maximum temperature records. I’ve been monitoring global temperatures this month, and it appears likely that January will rank between the 5th and 15th warmest January since record keeping began in 1880. Of particular note were the amazingly warm January temperatures in the Balkans. According to weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera, “over 90% of all stations in the Balkans from Slovenia to Croatia to Bosnia to Serbia To Montenegro to Kosovo etc., have DESTROYED their previous record of warmest January ever (many locations have 100 – 200 years of data.) In many cases the monthly temperatures were 7 – 9°C (13 – 16°F) above average, and the new records were 3 – 4°C above the previous record. This is for THOUSANDS of stations, almost all of them. In Slovenia, for example, Mount Kredarica is the only station in the whole country not to have set its warmest January on record.”
Video 1. If There’s Global Warming … Why Is It So Cold? The latest video from climate videographer Peter Sinclair on the Yale Climate Forum website demonstrates that while it was a very cold January in the Midwest, this has been counterbalanced by record warmth over the Western U.S. and Alaska, caused by an unusually extreme kink in the jet stream.
Links Another Unexpected Disaster That Was Well Forecast. Based in Atlanta, TWC’s Bryan Norcross concludes that “WARM GROUND + VERY COLD AIR + SNOW + WORKDAY = CHAOS. If the decision-makers understood the formula above, this information should have been sufficient to trigger a proper response.”
A small British company has produced the first “petrol from air” using a revolutionary technology that promises to solve the energy crisis as well as helping to curb global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees has produced five litres of petrol since August when it switched on a small refinery that manufactures gasoline from carbon dioxide and water vapour.
The company hopes that within two years it will build a larger, commercial-scale plant capable of producing a ton of petrol a day. It also plans to produce green aviation fuel to make airline travel more carbon-neutral.
Tim Fox, head of energy and the environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London, said: “It sounds too good to be true, but it is true. They are doing it and I’ve been up there myself and seen it. The innovation is that they have made it happen as a process. It’s a small pilot plant capturing air and extracting CO2 from it based on well known principles. It uses well-known and well-established components but what is exciting is that they have put the whole thing together and shown that it can work.”
Although the process is still in the early developmental stages and needs to take electricity from the national grid to work, the company believes it will eventually be possible to use power from renewable sources such as wind farms or tidal barrages.
“We’ve taken carbon dioxide from air and hydrogen from water and turned these elements into petrol,” said Peter Harrison, the company’s chief executive, who revealed the breakthrough at a conference at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London.
“There’s nobody else doing it in this country or indeed overseas as far as we know. It looks and smells like petrol but it’s a much cleaner and clearer product than petrol derived from fossil oil,” Mr Harrison told The Independent.
“We don’t have any of the additives and nasty bits found in conventional petrol, and yet our fuel can be used in existing engines,” he said.
“It means that people could go on to a garage forecourt and put our product into their car without having to install batteries or adapt the vehicle for fuel cells or having hydrogen tanks fitted. It means that the existing infrastructure for transport can be used,” Mr Harrison said.
Being able to capture carbon dioxide from the air, and effectively remove the principal industrial greenhouse gas resulting from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, has been the holy grail of the emerging green economy.
Using the extracted carbon dioxide to make petrol that can be stored, transported and used as fuel for existing engines takes the idea one step further. It could transform the environmental and economic landscape of Britain, Mr Harrison explained.
“We are converting renewable electricity into a more versatile, useable and storable form of energy, namely liquid transport fuels. We think that by the end of 2014, provided we can get the funding going, we can be producing petrol using renewable energy and doing it on a commercial basis,” he said.
“We ought to be aiming for a refinery-scale operation within the next 15 years. The issue is making sure the UK is in a good place to be able to set up and establish all the manufacturing processes that this technology requires. You have the potential to change the economics of a country if you can make your own fuel,” he said.
The initial plan is to produce petrol that can be blended with conventional fuel, which would suit the high-performance fuels needed in motor sports. The technology is also ideal for remote communities that have abundant sources of renewable electricity, such solar energy, wind turbines or wave energy, but little in the way of storing it, Mr Harrison said.
“We’re talking to a number of island communities around the world and other niche markets to help solve their energy problems.
“You’re in a market place where the only way is up for the price of fossil oil and at some point there will be a crossover where our fuel becomes cheaper,” he said.
Although the prototype system is designed to extract carbon dioxide from the air, this part of the process is still too inefficient to allow a commercial-scale operation.
The company can and has used carbon dioxide extracted from air to make petrol, but it is also using industrial sources of carbon dioxide until it is able to improve the performance of “carbon capture”.
Other companies are working on ways of improving the technology of carbon capture, which is considered far too costly to be commercially viable as it costs up to £400 for capturing one ton of carbon dioxide.
However, Professor Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York said that the high costs of any new technology always fall dramatically.
“I bought my first CD in the 1980s and it cost $20 but now you can make one for less than 10 cents. The cost of a light bulb has fallen 7,000-fold during the past century,” Professor Lackner said.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
(NaturalNews) Today I’m tipping my hat to John Horgan, a blogger who writes for Scientific American, for his extraordinary article entitled 
enlarge