Comey. His is the same look as Pres. G.W.Bush in the school room at the moment he was told airliners were striking the World Trade Center. He can put on his kilt or his shield. But, at the end of the day, he is somebody’s pawn. We might wish that he could take responsibility for that. But we know that is not true.
You are the ball. And you’re in play.
I closed my account at Citi today. I sent an email protest. I do not do business with companies or individuals that attempt to take my rights or the rights of others. I suggest that you do the same.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/citibank-goes-full-anti-gun/
We know from science publications that CO2 and methane emissions from oceans and land increase as the oceans and lands warm. Warming causes increasing CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere. Warming trends are positively correlated with increasing CO2 concentration trends with respect to time. The CO2 trend follows the warming trend. These two facts mean CO2 cannot be the cause of significant warming trends. The effect (warming trend) cannot precede its cause (increasing CO2 concentration). Human-produced CO2 is not causing significant warming of the atmosphere or the oceans.
We know from doing the math that it is not possible for humans to generate enough energy to significantly warm the oceans or the land. (Except possibly via thermonuclear war.) If humans devoted all available energy sources to directly heating the oceans, the math tells us that it would take many centuries to raise ocean temperature by 1 degree Celsius. Regardless how much CO2 humans might add to the atmosphere, the math tells us that the atmosphere does not have enough heat capacity, mass and volume to significantly change the temperature of the oceans, which occupy more than 70% of earth’s surface. Do the math.
We know that humans can change the weather and climate by making major changes in the uses of land and water, such as creating giant, paved cities where there was once a forest or a marshland, or cutting down major forests without replanting. But these are not effects of human-produced CO2.
We know that CO2 is not pollution and not causing significant warming. We know CO2 in the air is the only source for plants to obtain carbon, which is the fundamental building block of plants and all life. CO2 is plant food. More CO2 results is more plants, more food, and a healthier environment.
Therefore, there is no logic and no justification for suppressing use of fossil fuels under a presumed necessity to reduce CO2 produced by combustion of fossil fuels. Also, there is no logic and no justification for redistribution of wealth, or carbon taxes, or global control of natural resources under that presumed necessity.
There is sound logic and good justification for conservation of nature and minimizing pollution.
There is sound logic, good justification and legal basis for prosecuting global warming alarmists for defrauding the public out of billions of dollars. The triple damage awards gained from court cases against wealthy climate alarmists and their backers could be used for natural conservation projects and restoration of critical infrastructure, such as repair and rebuilding of clean-burning natural gas energy generators. It is one thing to study climate science and have the freedom of speech to publish results, but it is a crime to falsely alarm the public in order to extract billions of dollars from taxpayers and donors. Among other types of crime, this must be the largest case of mail fraud in history.
Today, some of these criminals are cooling the earth by creating clouds in the upper atmosphere. They are using your tax money/tax debt to create a problem. This is extremely dangerous.
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
by Holger Schmithüsen, Justus Notholt, Gert König‐Langlo, Peter Lemke, Thomas Jung
First published: 25 November 2015
pdf at link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2015GL066749
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
More on this subject by on 16. April 2018
———-
Bombing Syria is worse than useless, it is stupid. America’s interests are NOT served by bombing Syria. The interests of people who want to control Syria and oil pipelines are served. All of the reasons given for this and the last bombing by Trump are dubious at best, no better than the reasons for bombing Libya. The global elitists hate Trump and hate American values and individual sovereignty. Bombing Syria is rapidly turning off Trump’s base of support and votes, which is the purpose of the anti-Trump/anti-America global elites. Bombing does not make America great again, it makes America worse. Saving humanity is the alibi of tyrants and that meme will be used against Trump. Bombing based on suspicions raised by an intelligence operation that is unable to police itself is suicide. First, Trump and Americans must drain the rats from the swamp at home.
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison. ~ Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1386476
“We Have Nothing to Fear from CO2,” booklet in pdf form by Donn Dears, here is the link…
Every move you make and every step you take! (3:49 video) Absolute must watch!!! Here’s what Google captures from your cell phone. https://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Google.mp4?_=1
Google employees protest
On June 24, 2008, Associated Press (AP) and the channels that distribute AP reported that Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate modelling expert, told Congress, “We’re toast if we don’t get on a different path.” And, “This is the last chance.” And, “The thing that I think is the most important is to block coal-fired power plants.”
“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told AP. “The Arctic is the tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would,” he said.
“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of ice in summer.”
U.S. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts (a U.S. Representative in 2008) and head of the committee that heard Dr. Hansen’s testimony, added, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”
As I write this, it is April 10, 2018. In just over 2 months from today it will be 10 years since Dr. Hansen’s dire warnings. So, let’s take a look at the ice in the Arctic North Pole and compare 2008 with 2018.
But first, here is the AP article from a newspaper. The details are interesting.
Here’s the link to the newspaper:
And here is the Artic ice in January 2008 and January 2018
There has been an increase in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume over the past ten years. Meanwhile, taxpayers and donors to the climate scheme have had billions of dollars re-destributed out of their wallets under color of authority.
U.S. Senators especially Democrats like Markey, Brian Schatz, Maizie Hirono and many others should reconsider their positions, their votes and spending the people’s money and time on such demonstrable nonsense as human-caused climate change, previously called global warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as well as the United Nations and the myriad U.S. government bureaucracies, programs, policies, laws and NGOs that depend on this nonsense for funding. Soon the people will begin questioning what they knew and when did they know it.
The stink of fraud is in the air.
Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), the think tank that undertook the research, described it as a “scandal” that companies were paid for turning off turbines when there is a lack of demand for energy, such as nighttime when the need for electricity is low.
The compensation paid to wind farmers when turbines are turned off, known as ‘constraint payments’ is paid by the National Grid but is ultimately charged to consumers through electricity bills.
According to the think tank, the amount paid out has ballooned over the past five years from just below £6 million in 2012 to £108 million in 2017.
A total of £367 million was spent on constraint payments in the past five years – most of which is payed to farms in Scotland where the government has actively encouraged the industry, while the rest of Britain held back on onshore wind farms.
These figures equate to wind farms earning £70 per megawatt hour (MWh) when switched off compared to £49 per MWh when active.
The report highlighted the fact that EDF Energy put forward plans to extend its Fallago Rig, its wind farm in Scotland, despite the fact it earnt its highest levels of constrain payments last year.
Dr Lee Moroney, REF’s lead researcher, said: “It is an absolute scandal. They make more per megawatt hour when they are told to stop generating than when they are selling electricity to consumers.”
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values….”
P. Soares, “Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes,” International Journal of Geosciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, 2010, pp. 102-112.
Full pdf here: http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf
ABSTRACT
“The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.”
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.