“Eventually, America will expose her neck to us for slaughter.” ~ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Islamic terrorist, mastermind of the 9-11 attack.

“There are no innocent bystanders.  No one in the west, especially America, is innocent.  Killing women and men who are not actively fighting Islam is permissible because they pay taxes that fund those who do.  It is permissible to kill babies and children because they bring comfort to infidels who resist True Islam by refusing to convert or surrender. Allowing your enemy’s children to live replenishes their ranks, he said.  Killing children is a weapon Allah has provided to attack and undermine the will of their parents to continue resisting True Islam.”

“He said the terror attacks were good, but the practical way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non-Muslims.  He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message.  They will wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws for protection., ratchet up acceptance of  Sharia law, and then, only when they are strong enough, rise up and violently impose Sharia from within.  He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.”

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.”  (Interrogation by KSM revealed he was planning a second wave of attacks.  U.S. response in Afghanistan precluded that from happening.)

All of the above is quoted from the non-fiction book Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America by James E. Mitchell, PhD.

Note: The total fertility rate for Muslims is 4.4. children, while the average American family has 1.8 children and dropping.

The website at the link below is primary evidence of the collectivist propaganda machine aimed directly at our children and grandchildren.  Read it and weep for our nation and  liberty.

https://www.indivisible.us/

I am having fun watching liberals lose.  How about you?

Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face

Kurt Schlichter , Posted: Feb 13, 2017 12:01 AM

The Left is getting massively out-Alinskyed, and the hilarious thing is that this band of withered hippies, unemployable millennial safe-space cases, and unlovable + unshaven libfeminists don’t even know it. Oh, their masters sure know it. Soros is bitterly having to ramp up his infusions of blood money to keep his community-organized “grassroots” movements afloat. The less dumb ones among the lying dinosaur media are panicking as their influence fades, and Chuck Schumer is enduring such a non-stop parade of serial humiliations that if the Senate were a penitentiary, he’d be McConnell’s prison Mitch.

The Leftist mafia godmaleidentifyingparents pulling the strings of the Marxist Muppets know the score – they are losing. And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine.

Thank you, Andrew Breitbart. You yelled “Follow me!” and led a movement that had previously been dominated by doofy wonks and bow-tied geeks over the top in a glorious bayonet charge against the paper tiger liberal elite. The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky’s book isn’t some dusty old commie tome – it’s a lifestyle.

Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets or with fists.

The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.

Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Actually, we now have a lot of power. No, we don’t have direct power over liberal bastions like Hollywood, the media and academia, but by threatening to use governmental levers of power to impact their tax breaks, copyright laws, and subsidies, we can pound them into submission. And Trump is clearly willing to use all his powers to beat the living liberalism out of our enemy.

Wait, this is where the Fredocons loosen their bow ties and stutter, “Why…we can’t…Professor Wellington Wimpenheimer IV would not approve…it’s so mean…oh, well I never!”

Wake up. Man up. If you ever want to win (and maybe someday even kiss a girl) you need to get real. They hate us, and we either win or we spend the rest of our miserable lives as Boxer the Horse, slaving away to fund the welfare state under the lash of the Left until it decides it’s time to pack us off to the glue factory.

Rule 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Stupid GOP wonkcons want to fight to where the liberals are strong, like on entitlements. Trump is smart enough to fight where liberals are weak, like on the economy. And he’s going to throw down some serious jujitsu by doing a liberal thing – infrastructure spending – in a conservative way. He’s a developer – he knows how to build stuff, and he will freak the Left out by delivering concrete results (not the least of them, a wall) where liberals (for whom “infrastructure” means giving our money to their deadbeat constituents) never actually build stuff anymore. As a conservative, I’m not thrilled about “infrastructure” spending. But as a conservative insurgent who wants to see the Left on its collective collectivist back, twitching like a dying roach, I’m thrilled.

Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is not so much about pointing out the lies and hypocrisy that constitute Leftist orthodoxy – the vicious racism they deny is racism because it’s anti-white, the racism against non-whites who refuse to serve a liberal master, the sexism against women who think babies should be actually be born, and so on. It’s about not letting them tie us into knots by using our morals and values as bear traps to immobilize and neutralize us. Fortunately, most of us have discovered how losing our superficial “political values” helps us regain our freedom. We have embraced the power of not #caring. And liberals have no idea what to do when they shout “Trump is a meanie,” and we shrug, smile, and bust out with an impromptu interpretive dance to celebrate Neil Gorsuch.

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Actually, the AR15 a more potent weapon, but ridicule will do as long as the Left doesn’t try to make good on its countless threats of violence and tyranny. Regardless, we finally we have a conservative corps that is willing to mock the members of that motley collection of pompous, inept, lying jerks we call the Democrat Party and its media catamite corps. When they turn around and try to mock us back, well, we aren’t watching their late night hack comics anymore, and frankly they can make all the jokes they want. The punchline is still going to be “And then the Republicans repealed Obamacare.”

Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I’m having fun watching the liberals lose. How about you?

Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” I don’t know – I doubt I am ever going to be tired of so much #winning.

Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Remember the Trump outrage du jour a couple days ago when we were supposed to be on the verge of war with Australia? Well, Down Under’s kangaroos and giant scary spiders still wander freely, and we’ve long since moved on. President Trump has been busy owning the news cycle with appointments, executive orders, and the occasional squirrel-sighting tweet that sends the media chasing off on a rodent-seeking tangent. Oh no, Kellyanne Conway said to buy Ivanka’s stuff – if I ever cared (and I never did), I’ve already moved on to giggling about the progressive freak out over ICE being allowed to do its job again.

Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” No, Alinsky was wrong. The thing itself is much, much worse – as Democrats will find out when President Trump signs the law mandating national concealed carry reciprocity.

Rule 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” Democrats are trying to do the massive resistance thing again, and it’s going about as well as when they tried the massive resistance thing against integration. It may arouse libs in blue cities and on soon-to-be-defunded college campuses, but normals are getting tired of the nonstop Leftist nonsense. See Rule 7. Conversely, Trump’s nonstop series of orders, appointments, and policies seems to be helping him – mostly because they are popular.

Rule 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Unhinged Leftist obstruction, including violence, is driving people right. However, leftist harping on Trump’s rough edges seems to be backfiring – instead of “Oh my, what a brute!” people seem to be saying “Good. He fights.”

Rule 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Trump has a program and it’s popular. What’s the Democrats’ program? “Give us more of your money so we can buy votes from welfare cheats, and then we’ll lecture you on your privilege?”

The Democrats have no meaningful policies because their entire focus is on them regaining and keeping power – that’s their desired end state, not a country made great again, and that’s why they get no traction anywhere on the map outside of the dysfunctional blue spots. Watch for then to eventually seriously propose secession by the liberal states – after the last few months, I’ve been tempted to move my novel People’s Republic, about California ignoring the admonition to never go full Venezuela, over to the nonfiction section.

Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Well, they try to. They try to make Trump a demonic chimera composed of bits and pieces of Hitler, Mussolini, and more Hitler, and he just doesn’t care. We don’t care, because we know what they are really saying is that we normals are the monsters, that it’s not Trump governing that is illegitimate but that it is we normals having a voice in governing ourselves that is illegitimate.

And now we are woke, as the ridiculous Left would put it, to the Left’s tired Alinsky antics. We see it’s all a lie. It’s all a scam. And we aren’t playing the game by their rules anymore.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/13/shoving-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-right-back-in-the-lefts-ugly-face-n2284892

“The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring…  The [Congressional Science] committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization.  In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.”

“Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists.  This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.  During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.”

Ref: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

“Now, therefore, we recommend –

“That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
“That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.”

The following 206 endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields (this is a subset extracted from the other larger lists of endorsers):

https://www.icsc-climate.com/manhatten-declaration

Ref:  https://budbromley.blog/2015/02/26/the-manhattan-declaration/

The media loves to report things like “solar energy will double” or “solar and wind are growing faster than fossil fuels.” While true, these statements are misleading because little of our energy comes from these sources, so doubling them makes no significant difference. This report http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook/download-the-report/download-the-outlook-for-energy-reports supplies ExxonMobil’s best assessment of where we are and where we are likely going with respect to energy. I doubt their predictions are perfect, but I would wager they are close. The main takeaway is there is not going to be a major change in our energy infrastructure or energy supply mix over the next 25 years. It is possible that growth in carbon dioxide emissions will slow, but it is inevitable that emissions will be higher in 2040 than they are today.

It is also clear that we are not going to run out of coal, oil and natural gas. These are abundant today and they will still be abundant in 2040. Given the very high quality of available modern emissions control equipment for true pollutants, like sulfur dioxide and mercury, and recent low estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide (ECS) there is little evidence that fossil fuels are a problem today or in the foreseeable future.

Andy May, Petrophysicist  https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/

Some people will try to persuade you that human-produced CO2 is warming the atmosphere which is warming the oceans.  This is wrong.

The energy content of the oceans is about 3 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1000x) larger than the energy content of the Earth’s atmosphere. About 5.95 x 10^21 Joules of energy are required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere one degree C. About 5.30 x 10^24 Joules of energy are required to raise the temperature of the oceans by one degree C. This means that a small, barely measurable change in the temperature of the oceans will result in a corresponding change in the temperature of the atmosphere. Also, this means that a huge (~1000x) change in the temperature of the atmosphere would be required to cause a small, barely measurable change in ocean temperature.

As a practical matter, except by some calamity like an all out nuclear war, human-contributions of any and all gases in any amount to the atmosphere cannot cause a significant change to ocean temperatures.  Do the math.  Ocean temperatures are controlling air temperatures, not vice versa. Tectonics, volcanics and the sun control ocean temperatures, but understanding how these three work is still challenging scientists.  Climate is controlled by nature, and is not controllable by man. 

Open Letter – Climate Change (translated from German)

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world’s best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed – under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. – GH – Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#

Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by

Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH – Environmental Services

5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist

9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.

10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist

12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR

14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist

15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist

16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE

17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist

19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist

20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist

22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry

23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist

24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler

25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist

27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig

28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster

30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist

31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist

32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist

33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew

34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland

35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin

36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist

37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta

38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-

Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster

39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert

40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist

41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter

42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for

Standards and Norms i.R.

43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg

44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH

45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist

46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist

47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor

48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist

49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist

50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator

51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist

52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor

53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist

54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy

Leipzig

55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS

56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist

57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist

58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist

59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences

60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist

61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

+ 6 others

And 189 concerned active citizens, many with distinguished professional titles.

[Update: August 9, 2009: Organizers released the names of 64 more scientists who endorse the Open Letter. This brings the total number of skeptical scientists who signed the letter to over 130.]

Ing. stands in german for engineer, (Dipl. Ing or Ing. etc)
Dr. Ing ist an engineer with a PhD. – Prof. Dr. Ing has teached as an Professor on a University.
Additional Names of German Scientists:
Dipl. Ing Paul Allenspacher Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.
Dipl. Ing M.G. Bury Elektroingenieur
Dipl. Ing Peter Dettmann technischer Umweltschutz
Dipl. Ing Jürgen Seesselberg
Dipl. Ing Georg Völlink Energie- und Verfahrenstechnik
Dipl. Ing. Klaus Bark E-Technik
Dipl. Ing. Edgar Bätz EVU Leipzig & Institut für Energetik
Dipl. Ing. Marco Bernardi Kfz-Sachverständiger
Dipl. Ing. Leonhard Bienert Entwicklung Kernenergie ex DDR
Dipl. Ing. Paul Bossert Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Andreas Demming Selbstständiger Ingenieur,
Dipl. Ing. Hakola Dippel Förster
Dipl. Ing. Johannes Drosdeck Maschinenbau Automotive
Dipl. Ing. Klaus Emmerich Heizungsbau
Dipl. Ing. Konrad Fischer Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Fuchsberger Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Horst Gampper
Dipl. Ing. Pierre Gosselin Übersetzer Technisches Übersetzungsbüro
Dipl. Ing. Wilfried Heck Elektrotechnik
Dipl. Ing. Bernd Heinmüller Elektrotechnik
Dipl. Ing. Andreas Kaluza Bergbau Ing. Metallurge
Dipl. Ing. Peter Krah MinR a.D.
Dipl. Ing. Raimund Leistenschneider
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg; electrical engineering, control technology, Vizepräsident Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie
Dipl. Ing. Hainer Müller
Dipl. Ing. Hans-Jörg Oehm Regierungsbaumeister für Städtebau
Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Roesicke Dipl.- Ing. Industrielle Mikrobiologie
Dipl. Ing. Markus Rustemeier
Dipl. Ing. Michael Schneider Energie + Verfahrenstechnik
Dipl. Ing. Jørgen Sørensen Energieberater
Dipl. Ing. Eberhard C. Stotko Präsident VDSt-Akademie
Dipl. Ing. Erhard Thilo Geschäftsführer a.D
Dipl. Ing. Horst Trippe Entwicklung Automotive
Dipl. Ing. Walter Vollert Dipl.-Ing. Maschinenwesen
Dipl. Ing. Günter Weber Herausgeber Verlagsgruppe ‘markt intern’
Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer Systemadministrator
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Gerd Zelck
Dipl. Ing. Dipl-Inform. Ewald Gleixner Software-Entwicklung
Dipl. Ing. FH Johannes Schlorke Elektroniker i. R.
Dipl. Ing. FH. Burckhard H. Adam Energie- und Bauberatung
Dipl. Ing. M.A. Enno Dittmar
Dipl. Ing.oec. Horst Jungnickel ehemals leitender Mitarbeiter in der Energiewirtschaft
Ing. grad. Peter Orth Entwicklung Automotive i.R.
Ing. grad. Christian Ziekow
Ingenieur Jacob Brandt
Obering. i.R. Ludwig Lenniger
Dr. Ing. Richard Bock
Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Brune Energiewirtschaftler
Dr. Ing. Adolf Gärtner
Dr. Ing. Peter Geier Ernergiewirtschaftler
Dr. Ing. Herbert Heuser
Dr. Ing. Dietrich E. Koelle Ingenieurbüro für Systemanalysen
Dr. Ing. Arman Nyilas Ingenieurbüro
Dr. Ing. Friedrich Wilhelm Peppler Kernreaktorsicherheitsexperte
Dr. Ing. Helmut Pöltelt Energieexperte TETRA Energie GmbH Kernenergie
Dr. Ing. Roland Richter Nuklearservice bei der K.A.B. AG Berlin
Dr. Ing. Christian Thoma
Dr. Ing. Dipl.Ing. Oswald Kreitschitz Physiker und Unternehmen
Dr. Ing. Kurt Honrath Technischer Vorstand i.R.
Prof. a.D. Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Rauschenfels
Prof. Dr. Ing. Helmut Keutner TFH Berlin FB-VI
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Heiko Hofmann Berufsakademie Dresden
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Direktor des DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung i.R.
Prof. Dr.Ing. Dieter Ameling Präsident Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl a. D.
Prof. Dipl. Ing. Michael Otto

[End Translation of full German scientist letter]

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/08/04/update-consensus-takes-another-hit-more-than-60-german-scientists-dissent-over-global-warming-claims-call-climate-fears-pseudo-religion-urge-chancellor-to-reconsider-views/#ixzz46uIEfTyf

Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,

United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.

On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

*In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08- 14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

1. Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia

2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S.

3. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

4. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

5. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada

6. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist,

7. Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

8. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

9. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

10. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S.

11. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada

12. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

13. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

14. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

15. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

16. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.

17. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S.

18. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.

19. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

20. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

21. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S.

22. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada

23. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Australia

24. William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.

25. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

26. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

27. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.

28. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

29. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

30. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

31. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, New Zealand

32. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S.

33. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S.

34. Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia

35. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S.

36. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

37. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia

38. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia

39. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

40. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

41. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S.

42. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

43. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007

44. William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology

45. Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

46. Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

47. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

48. Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

49. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

50. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada

51. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.

52. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant – power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

53. William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.

54. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.

55. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

56. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.

57. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

58. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

59. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

60. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

61. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada

62. John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia

63. Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director – Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

64. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada

65. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University, Canada

66. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

67. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

68. Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

69. Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

70. John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia

71. Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada

72. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.

73. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

74. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

75. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada

76. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.

77. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

78. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

79. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

80. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force

81. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.

82. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

83. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada

84. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

85. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.

86. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

87. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada

88. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.

89. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

90. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

91. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

92. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.

93. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

94. Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia

95. Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.

96. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany

97. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

98. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.

99. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

100. Antonio Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.

Dec. 13, 2007

# # #

https://canadafreepress.com/article/over-100-prominent-scientists-warn-un-attempting-to-control-climate-is-futi

https://rense.com/general79/d3m.htm

“What the alarmists call “proof” and “evidence” is nothing more than conjecture. They cannot prove that man’s activities have warmed the planet, even if the next 100 years are twice as hot as they have predicted. They can lay out their “evidence” as if in a courtroom, and urge the jury to make the connection.”

“But the fact they can’t get around is that there is more than enough reasonable doubt to throw out their prosecution. Carbon dioxide simply isn’t the only suspect. Earth’s climate system has far too many influences for the inquisitors to settle on just one.”

• KERRY JACKSON
• 10/25/2016

In a criminal trial, the state (speaking on behalf of the people) prosecutes the alleged criminals.  It is a not civil case; it is not a matter wherein one citizen files suit against another.  One of us, or a group of us, who have been harmed by the global warming fraud must file a formal complaint with a U.S. attorney against one or more persons or legal entities.  Fraud and RICO laws apply.