The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[Ryan Ruck]

Britain Faces Freezing Winters As Slump In Solar Activity Threatens 'Little Ice Age'

Britain could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.

June 23, 2015

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."

Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."

The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.

A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.

Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."

Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect.

"This study shows that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to come."

Met Office long-range expert professor Adam Scaife said solar activity has already started to decline over the past few years.

He said: "Although the effect on global temperatures is very small, the local effect is big enough to make a difference and we need to include that in our future climate projections."

He said if "factors come together", severe winters like the 2009/10 chiller which crippled Britain could become more frequent.

He warned early signals point towards a period of minimum solar activity by the middle of this century.

"There is a high chance that solar activity of the sun will decrease over the next few years," he said.

"There is a chance of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum period where sun spots completely vanish, there are already some signs of this.

"This can change the amount of ozone in the atmosphere over the tropics and a weakening and southwards shift of the jet stream, in winter this leads to colder conditions.

"There were many factors which triggered the winter of 2009/10 and this could have been one of them.

"We might get another year when all these factors come together again, in any case there is an increased risk of colder winters."

James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather, said the effects may be felt as soon as this winter.

He said: "Solar activity levels, or solar flux, are currently estimated to be at their lowest for the last 100 years.

"We will head into another rapid decline throughout the remainder of the upcoming year.

"On the basis of past solar activity levels it is an inevitability that solar and sunspot activity will continue to fall off the charts in the coming years and decades, including the upcoming winter period of 2015/16."

The coldest winter ever recorded in 1684 occurred during the last Maunder Minimum period and saw the River Thames in London freeze over.

Maunder Minimum is named after the English astronomer Edward Walter Maunder who noticed fewer sunspots were observed between 1645 and 1715.

Sunspot activity peaks and troughs with roughly an 11-year cycle, activity has been dipping over the past decade.

Professor Scaife said: "During the Mander Minimum period there were runs of cold winters including 1684 which was the coldest winter recorded.

"There are signs that solar activity has been dropping over the past decade with a one in five chance of it reaching a similar low by around 2050."

[Ryan Ruck]

Is A Mini Ice Age On The Way? Scientists Warn The Sun Will 'Go To Sleep' In 2030 And Could Cause Temperatures To Plummet

July 10, 2015

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova.

'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum''.

'Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity.

'When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums.

'When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.'

Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun.

Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

'We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior,' she said.

'They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.

'Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,' said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California.

They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008.

In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity.

All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

[Ryan Ruck]

NASA Finds Mass Gains Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater Than Losses

October 31, 2015

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology.

"Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica - there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years - I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

"The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica," said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally's study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what's happening in these places," Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. "ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil," said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. "It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica's mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes."

[vector7]

August 29, 2016
Obama to 'ratify' climate change treaty without getting Senate approval

By Rick Moran

A Chinese news source is reporting that President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping will announce as early as this week that both nations have "ratified" the climate change treaty inked in Paris last year.

The most asked question during the Obama years: "How can he do that without congressional approval"?
Washington Times:

The South China Morning Post reported that Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are “set to jointly announce their ratification” of the ambitious international climate-change pact on Friday, two days before the start of the 11th G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.

“There are still some uncertainties from the U.S. side due to the complicated U.S. system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept. 2,” an unnamed source told the English-language newspaper.
In addition, “[s]enior climate officials from both countries worked late into the night in Beijing on Tuesday to finalise [sic] details,” said the article, citing “sources familiar with the issue.”

The Thursday report touched off alarm among foes of the Paris Agreement, which calls for nations to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions with the aim of holding global temperatures to an increase of “well below” 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.

Myron Ebell, director of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, described the report as “curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of theSenate.”

In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, ‘So be it,’ ” said Mr. Ebell, who flagged the article, adding, “Lo and behold, the president of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, ‘So be it.’ “

Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has warned other nations that without Senate approval, the agreement will “soon become another stack of empty promises on global warming.”

“I want to make sure international participants are warned now that the president’s commitment lacks the support of his own government and will fail,” Mr. Inhofe said in an April 12 statement.

He delivered his broadside shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry participated in a United Nations ceremony on Earth Day to sign what he described as the “historic” Paris agreement. Participating nations are required to sign and ratify the agreement.

The report may be erroneous. President Obama may have gotten away with approving the Iran nuclear agreement by holding a majority vote in Congress, rather than seeking approval of 2/3 of the Senate. But it's hard to see how he could magically transform what is clearly an international treaty into something that would only require his signature.

But then, this is a president who has played fast and loose with the Constitution for 7 years, making this report - even if it is bogus - entirely believable.

If Obama can make an end run around congress on the Paris treaty, there's no limit to what he could do in the remaining months of his presidency. He could sign off on the TPP, on a nuclear weapons reduction treaty, on several other trade agreements - all without going through the messy process of adhering to the Constitution and getting Senate approval.
Our transformation continues.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._approval.html

Obama will bypass Senate, ratify Paris climate accord himself during trip to China: report



In this file photo taken Nov. 30, 2015, President Barack Obama meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Le Bourget, France. A trade deal that is a centerpiece of Obama’s efforts to counter Chinese influence in Asia

By Valerie Richardson -
The Washington Times - Monday, August 29, 2016

President Obama is prepared to enter into the Paris climate accord as early as this week even though Republicans have insisted that the pact must be ratified by the Senate, according to a report out of China.

The South China Morning Post reported that Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are “set to jointly announce their ratification” of the ambitious international climate-change pact on Friday, two days before the start of the 11th G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.

“There are still some uncertainties from the U.S. side due to the complicated U.S. system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept. 2,” an unnamed source told the English-language newspaper.

In addition, “[s]enior climate officials from both countries worked late into the night in Beijing on Tuesday to finalise [sic] details,” said the article, citing “sources familiar with the issue.”

The Thursday report touched off alarm among foes of the Paris Agreement, which calls for nations to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions with the aim of holding global temperatures to an increase of “well below” 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.

Myron Ebell, director of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, described the report as “curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.”

“In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, ‘So be it,’ ” said Mr. Ebell, who flagged the article, adding, “Lo and behold, the president of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, ‘So be it.’ “

Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has warned other nations that without Senate approval, the agreement will “soon become another stack of empty promises on global warming.”

“I want to make sure international participants are warned now that the president’s commitment lacks the support of his own government and will fail,” Mr. Inhofe said in an April 12 statement.

He delivered his broadside shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry participated in a United Nations ceremony on Earth Day to sign what he described as the “historic” Paris agreement. Participating nations are required to sign and ratify the agreement.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called last month on international leaders to “accelerate” the ratification process after countries were slow to jump aboard.

The accord takes effect after ratification by 55 nations responsible for at least 55 percent of global emissions, but so far only 23 nations covering 1.1 percent of emissions have signed and ratified the pact, according to the “ratification tracker” maintained by Climate Analytics.

The group’s analysts expressed concern last month that the “window of opportunity” for ratification is “closing fast,” but that there have recently been “positive developments.”

“Many countries, led by the two biggest emitters, China and the United States, have signaled their intent to ratify by the end of 2016, leaving just four countries and 1.72% of global emissions needed for it to become official,” the Climate Analytics analysis said.

The Obama administration has maintained that the Paris Agreement is not a legally binding treaty and therefore does not require Senate ratification, while Republicans have insisted that it does.

“One can only speculate how the administration plans to ratify the agreement without approval of the Senate,” the Science and Environmental Policy Project said in a Sunday statement. “But given the disregard the administration has demonstrated toward Congress and the Constitution, such speculation is fitting.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-acco/

[American Patriot]

And now for something completely different....

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/

CLIMATE CHANGE CURRICULUM
Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

KATE HARDIMAN - UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME •AUGUST 31, 2016
3688 4053 Share245 138

‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.
“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.
“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”
The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.

Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class.
The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.”
“By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.”
In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus.
The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking.
Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’”
An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.”
MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism
MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up
MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr

[American Patriot]

The above is absolutely BULLSHIT.

Any college professor that squelches legitimate debate on a subject deserves to have their diploma removed and burned in front of them.

NO ONE has the right to dictate how students learn, and how a subject is handled. While it is true SOME science is "fixed", there are "laws" and "proofs", Globullshit Warming and "man made climate change" is a THEORY and a THEORY ONLY. It is NOT a proven theory, and therein lies the problem. A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

[American Patriot]

Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists (Video)


Saturday, December 3, 2016 5:47

(Before It's News)


Considering that we’re living in a time when news outlets on both sides of the political spectrum are screaming “fake news” about anything and everything written or said by anyone other than themselves, this article and the video before it will come as fantastic news for anyone looking to retire their status as a “climate denier” for good.
If the whole “climate change” debate wasn’t so dishonest, so corrupt, and so fraudulent, once you finally find out where the numbers liberals have been throwing at you for years actually come from, you’d probably die of laughter. Unfortunately, when you consider how many hard working Americans Al Gore must have stolen from to become a billionaire based on a perpetual lie, it becomes less funny.
According to liberal blowhards like Al Gore and Barack Obama, we always hear how Climate Change is “settled science,” right? They tell us that 97% of scientists all agree that climate change is man-made, and 97% is 97% right? Sure it is, just like 100 million unemployed Americans in a country of 320 million Americans is an unemployment rate of 4.7%.
In the article below, you’re about to learn exactly where that 97% figure that gets liberals throw out as “settled science” actually comes from… meaning… the actual arithmetic that leads to 97%. It turns out, “97 of all scientists,” is actually only a few dozen Californian scientists speaking for the world without permission. Shock right?
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dave DuByne from YouTube ChannelAdapt 2030. Since Dave studies “Climate Change” intimately, he took the debunking of “climate change” to a new level during the interview, but we hardly stopped there…
We also dove into theories about who is most likely responsible for continuing to perpetuate the false “Climate Change” narrative, why, how the “Climate Change” agenda relates to the coming global economic collapse, and how all of it ultimately is responsible for ushering in the global police state…
PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK OUT DAVE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL TOO!

PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK OUT DAVE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL TOO!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK IN THE NEWSLETTER HERE
WWW.THELASTGREATSTAND.COM
FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!
Humans are Free Reports:
In the current ridiculous battle over “real news” vs. “fake news,” the establishment media liars all claim that climate change is the perfect example of how “fake news” keeps interfering with their truthful facts.
They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling “fake” news.
But wait a second. Where does that “97%” claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?
Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for a more authoritative answer.
What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by climate change propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession.
Here’s an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the “97% of scientists” claim:
An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.
Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of “settled science”: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention.
That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.
The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom [only] 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.
Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
BE SURE TO CHECK THELASTGREATSTAND.COM FOR SURVIVAL GEAR!

FREE DETAILED GUIDE TO SURVIVING ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OR MARTIAL LAW HERE
Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.
So this is a very Michael Mann “reconstruction”: just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices.
In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments – one blandly positive, the other two not so much.
Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?
Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to “count” for the climate change survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT.
Not quite the “settled science” you’ve been told, is it? In fact, it all looks rather shoddy.
Yet this is the sort of propaganda that passes as “real news” while anyone who questions obviously faulty science claims is said to be trafficking in “fake news.”
So if “real news” is based on the cherry-picked answers from a wildly distorted, misrepresentative group of scientists whose responses were compiled by a pro-climate change “scientist” who obviously altered the responses to fit her own subjective beliefs, just how solid is the claimed authority of “real” news authenticity in the first place?
Furthermore, the very idea that science is “settled” is anti-scientific.
Science is never really settled, since the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that render old ideas obsolete.
Yet today, we are told by the Ministry of Truth fact checkers and monopolistic purveyors of self-proclaimed “real news” that only their views are legitimate and no one else is allowed to even question a “settled” set of beliefs.
“Consensus science” is unscientific by definition… reality isn’t decided by a consensus of faulty human beliefs
Thus, the very approach of proclaiming science to be “settled” is, itself, anti-scientific. Any set of supposed facts that cannot withstand questioning, criticism or debate is no science at all.
Yet stifling debate is precisely what the new “news truth” brigade is attempting to accomplish: the elimination of scientific dissent and alternative views.
By Mike Adams (excerpt) / Mark Steyn’s book, A Disgrace to the Profession, is available on Amazon.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...o-2864516.html

[Ryan Ruck]

August 29, 2016
Obama to 'ratify' climate change treaty without getting Senate approval

Well... Word this morning was that Trump was going to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

Then later in the day it changed to "considering withdrawing and would announce it soon".

Hmm...

Ivanka Putting “Intense” Pressure On Dad To Not Withdraw From Climate Deal

May 31, 2017

President Donald Trump is reportedly planning to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming, and his daughter is apparently very unhappy about it.

Ivanka Trump, who is an unpaid employee in the White House, has put “intense” pressure on her father to not step away from the climate deal, according to Axios reporter Jonathan Swan.

I am told the pressure on @POTUS from Ivanka to stay in Paris has been intense.

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) May 31, 2017

Prior to Trump’s inaguration it was reported Ivanka wanted to make climate change “one of her signature issues,” and this isn’t the first time it’s been reported the first daughter spoke out on climate change.

Ivanka Trump and her husband, White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, reportedly pressured the president to leave out language against the Paris climate accord from an executive order he signed during his first 100 days that rolled back Obama-era climate change policies.

Months later, in March 2017, it was reported Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the president of the “damaging diplomatic ramifications” of stepping away from the Paris climate change treaty.

If President Trump does end up pulling out of the Paris climate accord, it seems Ivanka has failed to have a strong influence on his stance on climate change.

The White House said an announcement will be made once Trump has made a final decision.

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Environmental groups are criticizing Trump for even considering stepping away from the climate deal, but it wouldn’t come as much of a surprise if he did.

In the past, Trump described climate change as a “hoax,” and he promised to remove the U.S. from the climate change treaty, or at least “renegotiate” it, during his 2016 campaign.

Trump has argued the climate deal would have a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy.

The U.S. would be one of only three countries to not support the climate deal if Trump withdraws from it.

The United Nations climate treaty was agreed to by 195 nations in Paris in 2015, signed in April 2016 and went into effect in November 2016.

Former President Barack Obama was a major supporter of the deal, which calls for the U.S. to reduce carbon by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

Today, the US joined some 170 nations to sign the Paris Agreement - an historic step this Earth Day to protect the one planet we've got.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) April 22, 2016

If Trump pulls the U.S. out, it would join Nicaragua and Syria as the world’s only countries not participating in the climate change deal.

The U.S. withdrawing from the deal would not break it apart, but America is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter and such a move would set a very bad precedent for other countries.

Not to mention, it would have an extremely negative impact on the environment, which is bad for everyone.

[Malsua]

Ugh, maybe if they lock up Kushner we can get rid of this lefty influence from Ivanka.

[Ryan Ruck]

We should be so lucky. I'm still waiting for all of the pro-2A influence Don Jr. was supposed to bring to the table.


I guess we're going to get an announcement on it shortly. I'm betting neither withdraw nor stay all in. I think it's more likely we'll see some middle of the road BS.

[Ryan Ruck]

LOL! I wish I was this good with lottery numbers...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=47767077

“The United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris Accord or really an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States,” the president said in the Rose Garden. “So we are getting out but we are starting to negotiate and we’ll see if we can make a deal that’s fair.”

How do you make a deal over something that doesn't exist?

[American Patriot]

The whole global warming/climate change thing is a load of horse shit. A big, huge, billion-shit-ton lie. The planet has been going through "climate change" since the dawn of the planet 4.6 billion years ago. Every "age" has had it's problems. Asteroids striking the planet caused massive climate change, growing the planet from a large spec of debris into what it is today. The iron core is still molten due to the quadrillions of tons of rock that fell on the world. When comets and other things delivered water and atmosphere, the climate changed again. Volcanoes continues belching out fire, CO/CO2/Oxygen and Nitrogen and other light gasses. The planet was formed from star stuff and will, one day return to star stuff, and there's not a damned thing humans can do about it right now. Diddling with "climate change" as a way of life is about smart as believing in horoscopes. Fake and pseudoscience. But, the most important part of "Climate Change" is a way for the Socialists to grab monies away from those who have it.... to lie to them, to steal the cash and donate it to themselves. It's a way to destroy capitalism, finally.

[Ryan Ruck]

California, China Sign Climate Deal After Trump's Paris Exit

June 6, 2017

With President Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, China and California signed an agreement Tuesday to work together on reducing emissions, as the state's governor warned that "disaster still looms" without urgent action.

Gov. Jerry Brown told The Associated Press at an international clean energy conference in Beijing that Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement will ultimately prove only a temporary setback.

For now, he said, China, European countries and individual U.S. states will fill the gap left by the federal government's move to abdicate leadership on the issue.

"Nobody can stay on the sidelines. We can't afford any dropouts in the tremendous human challenge to make the transition to a sustainable future," Brown said. "Disaster still looms and we've got to make the turn."

Brown later held a closed-door meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which the two pledged to expand trade between California and China with an emphasis on so-called green technologies that could help address climate change, Brown said. Trump's announcement last week that he wants to pull out of the Paris accord did not come up, according to the governor.

"Xi spoke in very positive terms," Brown told reporters after the meeting. "I don't think there's any desire to get into verbal battles with President Trump."

Trump's decision drew heavy criticism within the U.S. and internationally, including in China, which swiftly recommitted itself to the agreement forged with the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama. Trump argued that the Paris agreement favors emerging economies such as China's and India's at the expense of U.S. workers.

Tuesday's agreement between California and China's Ministry of Science and Technology effectively sidestepped Trump's move, bringing about alignment on an issue of rising global importance between the world's second-largest economy — China — and California, whose economy is the largest of any U.S. state and the sixth largest in the world.

Brown signed similar collaboration agreements over the past several days with leaders in two Chinese provinces, Jiangsu and Sichuan.

Like the Paris accord, the deals are all nonbinding. They call for investments in low-carbon energy sources, cooperation on climate research and the commercialization of cleaner technologies. The agreements do not establish new emission reduction goals.

The U.S. has long been a major player in the clean energy arena, driving innovations in electric cars, renewable power and other sectors of the industry. California, with some of the strictest climate controls in the nation, has been at the forefront of the sector.

China in recent years overtook the U.S. as the world leader in renewable power development. But it has also struggled to integrate its sprawling wind and solar facilities into an electricity grid still dominated by coal-fueled power plants.

At the same time, Chinese leaders face growing public pressure at home to reduce the health-damaging smog that blankets many urban areas.

China is by far the world's largest user of coal, which accounts for almost two-thirds of its energy use and has made it the No. 1 emitter of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Communist Party leaders pledged that greenhouse gas emissions will peak no later than 2030 under the Paris pact, and start to fall after then. They have canceled the planned construction of more than 100 new coal-fired power plants and plan to invest at least $360 billion in green-energy projects by the end of the decade. The nation's consumption of coal fell in 2016 for a third consecutive year, but rebounded slightly in 2017.

It could meet its 2030 target a decade early.

Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry also is attending this week's energy meeting in Beijing. Observers say delegates from other countries will be listening closely to the former Texas governor to gauge how Trump administration policies will shape global energy trends.

During a Tuesday forum devoted to capturing carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants and other large industrial sources, Perry said his agency was pursuing an "all of the above" strategy that includes research intended to spur innovation for coal, nuclear, renewables and other fuels. He left the event without taking questions.

Perry is from a state that is known for its oil production but that has also had significant renewables development. Texas has some of the largest wind farms in the country and a fast-expanding solar sector.

Such U.S. advances in renewables won't simply disappear under Trump, said David Sandalow, a former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration now at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. Too many companies and states are heavily invested in the sector for that to happen, he said.

But a lack of government support for clean energy will cost the U.S. jobs, Sandalow added, with cuts to research programs that Trump has proposed being a sign of what's to come.

"It's backward looking and it's going to hurt the U.S.," he said. "The contrast with what's happening in China could not be more stark."

Interviewed Tuesday morning on American cable channel MSNBC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt touted U.S. emissions reductions over past years and said that despite withdrawing from the Paris accord, the Trump administration would continue to engage others, particularly developing nations, on the effort.

"We have a strong, strong approach to reducing emissions. We have nothing to be apologetic about," Pruitt said. "America is not going to be disengaged, we are going to maintain engagement."

Trump is a strong advocate of boosting U.S. fossil fuel industries, in particular coal mining. Cheap natural gas and tighter pollution restrictions toppled coal from its dominant position in the U.S. power sector during Obama's tenure. Experts say it's unlikely to regain that position anytime soon, regardless of what Trump does.

Without mentioning Trump by name, Brown told attendees at a forum on electric vehicles that "there are still people in powerful places who are resisting reality."

Later, when asked by the AP what could prompt the U.S. to return to the forefront of climate change efforts, Brown replied, "Science, facts, the world, the marketplace."

Hmmm...

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[vector7]

Hmmm...

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Companion Thread: Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.

The CW2 Cube -- Mapping the Meta-Terrain Of Civil War Two

by Matthew Bracken

From Matthew Bracken, author of Enemies Foreign And Domestic, Domestic Enemies - The Reconquista, and Foreign Enemies And Traitors:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain.

First, a caveat. I am not going to waste our time making politically-correct genuflections after every controversial sentence, because this essay is intended to be read by mature and rational adults.

Before we move on to the cube, let’s begin with the CW2 Square. The cube is best tackled in another step. Draw the square and label one axis Poorer to Richer. Label the other axis Darker to Lighter. Darker, for brevity, includes African-Americans, Hispanics and so on. Lighter refers to those of European ancestry. The two opposed meta-groups are the poorer and darker versus the richer and lighter, or whiter if you wish to be blunt. The richer/whiter have the power of their wealth, but counterbalancing that advantage is the fact that the poorer/darker have succeeded in wresting control of much of government power. This is so, even if most of their elected leaders are anything but poor or dark.

Now, before you scream out your exceptions, yes, there are rich black cattle ranchers and poor whites living in blighted urban areas and so on. However, to focus on them is to miss the critical centers of gravity of Civil War Two for the over-study of interesting but insignificant outliers. Filling one corner of the CW2 Square will be the poorer and darker, who primarily are liberal and progressive Democrats who believe in a malleable “living Constitution.” And in the other corner will be the richer and whiter, who mainly are conservative or libertarian Republicans who believe in the original intent of the written Constitution. Again, keep your eyes on the two meta-cores, not the exceptions.

Now, let’s add the third dimension and shoot another axis out from the square to form the CW2 Cube. Label the third axis Urban versus Rural, or City versus Country if you prefer. This axis gives a geographical dimension to the meta-terrain, but there will be no convenient dividing line between the opposed sides as there was during the first civil war. It has frequently been observed that today’s red-blue political map is better understood at the county than at the state level. Even blue states like Illinois, California and New York are rural-red outside of their blue urban cores. Obviously, these urban cores are heavily populated but geographically small, with all that means to the electoral process today and to a possible civil war later.

So the opposing corners of the CW2 Cube can be seen as the poorer, darker cities versus the richer, whiter rural areas. Again, don’t quibble about outliers. Yes, there are a few rich, conservative African-Americans living in Wyoming, many poor white liberal Democrats in rural West Virginia, some rich conservatives in San Francisco and every other exceptional case imaginable.

Most of us live in the mushy, mongrel middle, far from the tips of the two opposite corners. But the centers of gravity of Civil War Two shall be as I have described: the relatively richer, whiter and more rural against the poorer, darker and urban.

One can also propose many more axes of conflict than can fit on a cube, such as the religious versus the non-believers, socialists versus capitalists, statists versus individualists and so on. However, after you reflect upon the CW2 Cube, I think you will find that most of these extra axes can be overlaid parallel to one of the three already posited.

*******

So, of what use is the CW2 Cube, other than in providing a conceptual map for Civil War Two? In my research as a novelist who attempts to write realistic fiction about the coming years, I have long been a student of modern civil wars. One repeated lesson of modern civil war is that there is inherently dangerous, even fatal terrain. Some of this predictably-dangerous terrain is often highly desirable and even advantageous before the outbreak of civil war.

To begin: you do not want to live as a trapped and cut-off minority in what might become “enemy territory.” If you live amidst your civil war enemies, as defined and located within the CW2 Cube, you will be in mortal danger even if your immediate neighbors know, love and respect you. Those persons who have a stake in fanning the flames of CW2 (and their number shall be legion), will intentionally target those remaining “holdouts” who may be respected minority neighbors. (In this essay, minority means “the minority within a given group or area.” Blacks are the majority in some areas, and whites are the minorities in others, and so on.)

Frequently in modern civil wars, roaming armed groups (in or out of uniform) will even force people to kill their own beloved and respected minority neighbors as an ultimate loyalty test. If they refuse, they may themselves be killed as “traitors.” Besides pre-conflict racists and radicals, there will be an ever-increasing pool of persons attempting to expel minorities from their homes. Those embittered unfortunates who have already been ethnically cleansed will be seeking new living quarters, and the homes and property of “enemy” minorities still living in majority territory will be the first on the chopping block. (Not the auction block, because payment of any kind is rarely offered.) This process of minority eviction becomes self-perpetuating.

Often, those members of minorities who escape as refugees are the lucky ones who do not lose their lives during the back-and-forth of escalating violence. The fact that they may have been loved, admired and respected for many years by their majority-population neighbors will not protect them. This is a clear lesson of modern civil war. Another is that while the rich or the well-to-do can sometimes hide their wealth and pass as proles, the same cannot be said about concealing one’s racial or ethnic identity. Religious affiliation and political leanings can also be hidden, but outward appearance cannot. Civil War Two may begin on purely political grounds, but it will devolve into something worse.

Does this mean that all white city-dwellers should head for the hinterland, or that dark-skinned folks living in the country should move to the city? It’s not for me to say. We all hope and pray that there will never be a second “hot civil war” in America, instead of merely the “cold civil war” we are engaged in today. But the lessons of modern civil wars should not be ignored. Another lesson is that it will take tremendous moral courage to defy the hot-heads and radicals, and shield your minority neighbors from harm. Think of Anne Frank. Think of those indescribably brave inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia who hid their minority neighbors, when the discovery of that fact could and often did lead to their own deaths.

*******

While Civil War Two is on the table for discussion, allow me to introduce two aggravating factors that don’t fit neatly on the cube. The first is the concept of multiple embedded minorities. Picture the old cartoon mainstay showing a line of fish getting ready to gobble another fish, from the leviathan down to the small fry. You might live in a neighborhood where you are in the majority, but the neighborhood is in a town where you are in the minority. And the town is surrounded by a larger area where your own kind once again predominates.

Or you might fit into the picture as the smallest of all fish, living in the only minority household within a majority neighborhood. From street to neighborhood to city to state to region can easily place you in the middle of several levels of embedded minorities-within-majorities. This formulation might work for many decades during times of relative prosperity and well-being, but during a civil war it is a recipe for disaster, as unstable as nitroglycerin-filled bowling pins. It’s all cool just as long as the pins are standing still and calmly hanging out together, but look out when the Black Swan bowling ball comes rolling in! An unstoppable chain reaction ensues, as each new act of violence is avenged up and down the line.

Remember that funny line-of-fish cartoon, and imagine it a few seconds later when the biting begins. It’s not so funny then -- especially for the smaller fish.

The second aggravating factor is the unstable triangle of the three-sided civil war. The Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims provide a classic example. Each side of the unstable triangle will backstab yesterday’s ally at the moment they perceive themselves to be at a local disadvantage, or when they see an opportunity to wipe out an historic enemy with a new Final Solution. The unstable ethnic triangle in the United States will in many places be composed of black, white and Hispanic sides. By comparison, the old black and white social dichotomy was inherently stable, even when it might have been rife with injustice.

In some areas, Asians, Middle-easterners, Native Americans and other groups will contribute to the formation of regional social geometries that are even more unstable than the unstable triangle. Study modern civil wars and you will cringe at the implications. A steel roller-coaster overloaded with old dynamite and electric blasting caps during a lightning storm comes to my mind.

And finally, some urban settings are just disastrous during a modern civil war, even if they might offer a terrific quality of life during peacetime. Perhaps the top the list of danger areas are high-rise buildings located near potential civil war flashpoints or fault lines. Living in a cluster of high-rises divided by a “green line” during a guerrilla sniper war is a worst-case horror show. Not to mention the misery attendant to life in a tall building without running water, electricity, sewage service, working elevators, heating or air-conditioning. While under intermittent sniper fire. For months.

So should you stay or should you go? If you don’t believe that another civil war in America is possible, then simply disregard this column. But if you think that a second civil war could happen then picture the CW2 Cube and map your location within it. If you think that you live near a possible civil war fault line, especially as a local minority, consider relocating.

After the fact, a common sentiment heard from urbane, secular Bosnians living in the Olympic City of Sarajevo expressed complete disbelief that a brutal, bloody civil war could have come to their modern European city and tear their lives apart.

But it did.

A parting suggestion to students of modern civil war is to read “Seasons in Hell: Understanding Bosnia’s War” by the British journalist Ed Vulliamy. It’s currently collecting dust at your local public library, waiting only to be read.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Matthew Bracken is the author of the “Enemies” trilogy, beginning with 2003's “Enemies Foreign And Domestic”.

For more information, go to http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/

See also Misha Glenny's The Third Balkan War for his account of what happens when a society commits autogenocide.

[Ryan Ruck]

Solar Update June 2017 – The Sun Is Slumping And Headed Even Lower

Solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far, likely the lowest in 100 years

June 6, 2017


Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017

The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.


Figure 2: F10.7 Flux of Solar Cycles 19 to 24 aligned on month of minimum

Solar Cycle 24 is sitting at the lower bound of activity for solar cycles back to 1964, the start of Solar Cycle 19. From here to minimum though, it looks like Solar Cycle 24 will have much lower volatility than the solar cycles that preceded it.


Figure 3: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017

According to Svensmark’s theory, the neutron flux, with its effect on cloud cover and thus the Earth’s albedo, is one of the bigger climate drivers. For Solar Cycle 24, the neutron flux duly turned around and starting rising again in 2015, one year after solar maximum. It is a safe bet that the neutron flux is heading for a record high at solar minimum (+ one year) relative to the instrumental record.


Figure 4: Oulu Neutron Count aligned on month of solar minimum

The last weak solar cycle was Solar Cycle 20 which caused the 1970s Cooling Period. From the same stage in that cycle the neutron count flattened out to minimum. That could happen for Solar Cycle 24 but it is more likely to keep rising to minimum as 23 did and thus we can expect a count, at the end, of over 7,000.


Figure 5: F10.7 Flux and Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017

If we conflate the F10.7 flux and the Oulu neutron count inverted, that shows they tracked each other closely up to 2004. Something changed in 2004 and since then the neutron count has been higher relative to its previously established correlation with the F10.7 flux.


Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2017

Figure 6 shows that what changed in 2004 was the magnetic output of the Sun, shown in this instance by the Ap Index. Prior to that, there seemed to be a floor of activity at solar minima, just as the floor of activity for the F10.7 flux is 64. Three years to minimum and the Sun is now back to that level.


Figure 7: Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2017

The best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle is the strength of the solar polar magnetic fields at solar minimum. Figure 7, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory, shows that the solar polar magnetic fields at minimum have been weakening with each successive cycle.


Figure 8: Solar Polar Field Strength aligned on minimum strength at solar maximum

Solar Cycle 25 started from the blocks looking like it was going to be very weak and fulfill the prophecies of those predicting a Maunder-like experience for the 2020s. Then after a couple of years it caught up with Solar Cycle 24. Looking back over the previous three cycles, the solar polar field strength at this stage, three years before minimum, has been close to the value at minimum. On that assumption, Solar Cycle 25’s amplitude is likely to be two thirds of that of Solar Cycle 24, and thus 60. Further climatic cooling is therefore in store.


Figure 9: Sunspot Area 1985 – 2016

NASA has deigned to give us another nine months of sunspot area data by hemisphere, up to September 2016. The strong asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres continues. The fact that the hemispheric peaks of the last three cycles align indicate that there is a multi-decadal force operating in the vertical dimension. The chance that two sets of three points line up exactly by themselves is infinitesimal.


Figure 10: Hemispheric Sunspot Area and F10.7 Flux

As shown by Figure 10, total sunspot area tracks the F10.7 flux closely.

[Ryan Ruck]

Why The Russians Conceived The Global Warming Scam

June 20, 2017

One of my duties at Accuracy in Media (AIM) has been to expose left-wingers in the media and Congress who were soft on the old Soviet Union and are now acting like hard-liners on Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It is a fascinating topic which exposes the duplicity of the left-wing obsession with Russia.

These people, who were soft on the Soviet Union and now hard on Russia, are the worst kind of hypocrites. Their hypocrisy is further demonstrated by the abundant evidence that the global warming or climate change theory, which they now embrace, was conceived by Soviet communists as a means by which to destroy the industrial base in the United States. This disinformation theme has been embraced by the liberals now claiming to be tough on Russia.

Don’t take my word for it. When Natalie Grant Wraga died in 2002 at the age of 101, The Washington Post recognized her expertise as a Soviet expert, noting that she was “born in czarist Russia, saw great upheaval in her native land and became an expert in unmasking Soviet deception methods for the State Department…”

But the Post would not admit that fact in today’s political climate.

The liberal Economist magazine wrote, “She was perhaps the only person alive in the West who could claim such an intimate knowledge of Russian political thinking, from tsarist times to the collapse of the Soviet Union.” She commented, “Many people are studying the past, but very few are studying the present. Keep your eyes open and your ears open.”

This is good advice. One of the great Soviet/Russian deceptions, Wraga wrote, was the idea that humans were changing the climate and that humans could save the earth through socialism. She said, “…protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West.”

In her 1998 article, “Green Cross: Gorbachev and Enviro-Communism,” Wraga, who dropped her last name and wrote under the byline Natalie Grant, explains in detail how the Soviet deception campaign, using the climate as an organizing tool, was developed. It was launched after the so-called collapse of the Soviet state, when Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president, embarked on an environmental crusade, using the United Nations and other international organizations.

The veteran journalist Wes Vernon wrote about Grant’s research in this area, in an article entitled, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare.”

The big event, as Grant called it, was a Moscow conference in January, 1990. As Time magazine described it, “At a meeting of the Global Forum in Moscow in 1990, when he was still Soviet President, Gorbachev proposed an organization roughly analogous to the International Red Cross to contend with environmental problems that cross national boundaries.” Among the guests and speakers was then-U.S. senator and future vice president Al Gore.

Talk about “collusion” with the Russians! Where was the FBI investigation?

The collusion took place through the Global Forum and various United Nations conferences, including the Earth Summit of 1992, giving rise to the concept of “sustainable development,” another way to describe socialism.

Grant wrote, “Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.”

Grant predicted how this campaign would proceed, using “nightmarish” pictures of floods, scorched earth, disease and death, unless drastic action was taken at the international level to curb industrial activity in the capitalist West.

She said the campaign would be driven by Moscow’s sympathizers or dupes in “science,” academia, “and the slavishly obedient Establishment media,” all for the purpose of forcing the United States and other Western countries “to accept measures and regulations harmful to the Western world.”

In short, for communism to succeed, capitalism would have to be portrayed as based on exploitation—but not of man, as the old Marxist theory held. Rather, capitalism was now exploiting the earth! The whole purpose of this dogma has been to inhibit global capitalism, the only system that has proven capable of meeting the growing needs of expanding populations. But this time the claim was that human economic progress threatened the environment because of the capitalist model on which it was based.

Hence, President Obama’s Paris climate change agreement was designed to curtail U.S. industrial expansion while sending foreign aid to the rest of the world. It was a Marxist plan that benefited Russia, a major oil and gas producer.

On June 1, when he announced pulling out of the climate change agreement, President Donald Trump put his finger on the key problem, which was deliberately part of the plan. He attacked “the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country” while creating a so-called Green Climate Fund which would cost the United States “a vast fortune” to be sent to the other nations of the world.

In other words, Trump’s pull-out from the agreement works AGAINST Russian interests and those of the global socialists.

Nevertheless, the propaganda campaign continues. In July, Netflix releases the film “Chasing Coral,” which attempts to blame man for “dramatically changing” and losing coral reefs in the world’s oceans on a global scale. With carbon emissions said to be “warming the seas,” the audience will be told of the “catastrophe” that is “silently raging underwater” unless we wake up and dramatically restrict our lifestyles.

Meanwhile, Ohio State University has released a “study” in the Journal of Peace Research suggesting that climate change could lead to “food violence.” One of the authors is quoted in an Ohio State University press release as saying, “Development aid is important now and it is likely to be even more important in the future as we look for ways to increase climate resilience.”

In other words, the United States must pay more to the other nations of the world. This is global socialism.

It looks like the “nightmarish” scenarios predicted by Natalie Grant are not yet at an end.

But when will the liberals wake up? Answer: they won’t. Like James Hodgkinson, a true believer in the global warming theory, they want to “tax the rich” in their own country and will shoot to kill those who stand in the way of this global redistribution scheme.

[Ryan Ruck]

[indent]
NASA Predicts Next Solar Cycle Will Be Lowest In 200 Years (Dalton Minimum Levels) + The Implications

June 18, 2019

An approaching Grand Solar Minimum is gaining evermore support. Even NASA appears to be on-board, with their recent SC25 prediction — though, predictably, they stay clear of the implications.

NASA’s forecast for the next solar cycle (25) reveals it will be the weakest of the last 200 years.

The maximum of this next cycle — measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level — could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one.

The agency’s results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025:



The below is lifted from NASA’s official website (www.nasa.gov):

The new research was led by Irina Kitiashvili, a researcher with the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at NASA’s Ames Research Center, in California’s Silicon Valley. It combined observations from two NASA space missions – the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and the Solar Dynamics Observatory – with data collected since 1976 from the ground-based National Solar Observatory.

One challenge for researchers working to predict the Sun’s activities is that scientists don’t yet completely understand the inner workings of our star. Plus, some factors that play out deep inside the Sun cannot be measured directly. They have to be estimated from measurements of related phenomena on the solar surface, like sunspots.

Kitiashvili’s method differs from other prediction tools in terms of the raw material for its forecast. Previously, researchers used the number of sunspots to represent indirectly the activity of the solar magnetic field. The new approach takes advantage of direct observations of magnetic fields emerging on the surface of the Sun – data which has only existed for the last four solar cycles.

Mathematically combining the data from the three sources of Sun observations with the estimates of its interior activity generated a forecast designed to be more reliable than using any of those sources alone.

In 2008 the researchers used this method to make their prediction, which was then put to the test as the current solar cycle unfolded over the last decade. It has performed well, with the forecast strength and timing of the solar maximum aligning closely with reality.

IMPLICATIONS

NASA attempts to paint the upcoming solar shutdown as a window of opportunity for space missions, “the improving ability to make such predictions about space weather are good news for mission planners who can schedule human exploration missions during periods of lower radiation.”

This is absurd, and serves as yet another example of government agency obfuscation and half-truths.

NASA is effectively forecasting a return to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) but gives no mention of the brutal cold, crop loss, famine, war and powerful Volcanic eruptions associated with it:

• Like the deeper Maunder and Spörer Minimums preceding it, the Dalton brought on a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2C decline over 20 years, which devastated the country’s food production.
• The Year Without a Summer also occurred during the Dalton Minimum, in 1816. It was caused by a combination of already low temperatures plus the aftereffects of the second largest volcanic eruption in 2000 years: Mount Tambora’s VEI 7 on April 10, 1815.
  
  (For more on the link between reduced Solar Output and a Volcanic + Seismic uptick, click here).
  
  The earthquakes and tsunamis that followed killed tens of thousands of people living on the surrounding Indonesian islands. But Tambora’s eruption wasn’t of much interest to Europe and the U.S., not initially at least — the news was focused on the Napoleonic Wars and the Battle of Waterloo on Sunday, June 18, 1815, in which the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon Bonaparte at the expense of 65,000 men.
  
  The newspapers were preoccupied with the battle right up until the start of winter in 1815, when the weather turned decidedly whacky. And by 1816, the climate was dominating headline news as both Spring and then Summer failed to arrive.
  
  One Virginia resident recalled, “In June another snowfall came and folks went sleighing. On July 4, water froze in cisterns and snow fell again, with Independence Day celebrants moving inside churches where hearth fires warmed things a mite.”
  
  Clothes froze on the line in New England, ice on ponds and lakes was reported in northwestern Pennsylvania in both July and August, and Virginia had frosts in August. The temperature occasionally got into the 90s, but then would drop to nearly freezing in just a few hours.
  
  Crops that had managed to sprout were frozen out in early June, replanted, and frozen again in July. Very few crops were actually harvested, and of those that were, the yields were very poor. In turn, food and grain prices skyrocketed — for example, in 1815, oats sold for $0.12 a bushel but by the next year, a bushel would set you back $0.92.
  
  And the story was the same across the world:
• The potato crop in Ireland rotted in the ground resulting in widespread starvation.
• In England, France and Germany wheat crops failed leading to bread shortages and food riots and looting.
• Northern China was also hard hit with thousands of people starving to death.
• While in southern Asia, torrential rains triggered a cholera epidemic that killed many more.

The year 1816 went on to earn another, rather more morbid nickname, “Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death“.

For more from farmanddairy.com, click here.

GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM

Solar Cycle 25 will likely be a mere stop-off on our descent into the next Grand Solar Minimum — a period of even further reduced temperatures and crop yields (research Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715).
And there are other researchers still insisting there won’t be a solar cycle 25 at all.

While the excellent analysis from Valentia Zharkova suggests that all four of the Sun’s magnetic fields will go out of phase in 2020, which blows any IPCC ‘warming’ out of the water (click here for more).


One way or another, the cold times are returning — it’s just a matter of when.


Prepare.