“For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

“Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC. [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]

“The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,

• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,

• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,

• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,

• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,

• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

“Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.”

Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD. Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT.

The first bullet point may be a bit subtle. Unlike prior reports, the Summary for Policymakers of the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5, 2013) does not give projections of likely outcomes but a range of outcomes under different CO2 scenarios (storylines).  (Explanation by Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environment Policy Project.  (SEPP)

More detail:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/07/unfcccs-25-year-long-process-of-climate-speculation-built-upon-a-foundation-of-conjecture/

Letter and petition:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/richard-lindzen-petition-to-president-trump-withdraw-from-the-un-convention-on-climate-change/

Ally with former communists or Muslims? That is the real question about NATO and the EU.

In case you missed it, France is nearing a state of civil war against Muslims within France. The French government and military are gearing up to fight the Muslims inside France.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that “every day attacks are foiled … (including) as we speak.”  He continued, “nearly 15,000 people in France are being tracked because they are suspected of being in the process of radicalization, while 1,350 are under investigation – 293 of them for alleged links with a terrorism network.”

“‘Today the threat is at a maximum, and we are a target,’ Valls said on Europe 1 radio. ‘Every day intelligence services, police foil attacks, dismantle networks, track terrorists.’
Despite the tracking, with plots uncovered, ‘There will be new attacks. There will be innocent victims,’ the prime minister said.”  (1)

IMHO and personal experience, most Russians and Chinese, like most Iranians, are not enemies of freedom.  They want and appreciate freedom. The leaders, the politicians and the entrenched bureaucrats positioning for more power, more control and more money, i.e. the oligarchies, are the problem.

Russia and China versus America/NATO were enemies for a couple of generations. Today, I don’t think that is true. Russia and China are rapidly becoming capitalist. The oligarchies there know they cannot stop the transition to capitalism, so the oligarchies have decided to become crony capitalists like their ilk in America and Europe.  American, Russian, Chinese and Iranian people have two common enemies.  One enemy is the oligarchy running our respective governments.  The second enemy is the Islamist oligarchy.

We in America are moving in opposite directions from Russian and China with regard to capitalism.  But we are on the same path, passing in the night if you will.  This is where diplomacy, negotiation and deal making can succeed.

The oligarchy in the US is moving this nation rapidly to the Euro model of socialism, ruled of course by crony socialists.  (Of course, I vigorously disagree and resist that movement.)  Meanwhile, the Russians and the Chinese are moving in the opposite direction, moving away from communism and towards capitalism.  Russians and Chinese are now in Euro-socialism and moving rapidly toward crony capitalism. In addition, of course, Americans and the current U.S. government (but not the last U.S. government) share with the Russian people and the Russian government and with the Chinese people and the Chinese government an anathema regarding sharia and Islamism.   The Russians and Chinese understand that better than Americans.  In that sense, Americans have far more in common with Russians and Chinese than we do with the most but not all of the governments Europe; Hungary and Poland are outstanding examples to the contrary.

Continuing an alliance with NATO and the EU is becoming a problem.  For example, the U.S. military and intelligence will not be able to share with NATO and EU when NATO and EU countries become sharia compliant.  What will become of NATO and the EU when Italy falls to Islam? That is not a far off.  The current Prime Minister of Italy has said that Italy will not survive past 2017 if it remains compliant with EU immigration law. Italy will be overwhelmed by Islam.

World domination is the expressed intent of Islam. The Russians and Chinese already understand that. The U.S. and NATO and EU do not understand that.  Russia, China and the U.S. and free people everywhere have a common enemy, an enemy sworn until death to dominate all of us infidels. Our common external enemy is the oligarchy in Muslim countries who are using a dark-age, unreformed religious dogma to control people and nations.

In addition, we the people of America have far more in common with the people of Russia and the people of China and the people of Iran than we do with our own respective governments.  For example, neither the people of the U.S. nor the people of Iran would have approved billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to be paid to the government elites of Iran, as Obama/Kerry did without Congressional approval.

Unfortunately, due to generations of indoctrination, we do not have much in common with the people in most other Muslim countries.  That should be obvious since these countries with a few exceptions have eliminated almost all freedom of religion and they actively persecute or kill non-Muslims and apostate former Muslims, in addition to killing homosexuals and treating women as property.  Generations of Muslims run through their streets whipping their backs until bloody, screaming death to America, death to Israel, death to England, death to Russia, etc.  If you read Islam’s holy books with an open mind, you will realize it is a cult of death that idolizes the afterlife.  They train their children in schools and public television to kill us infidels.  Only a fool ignores such things.

The standard-issue social system defined by sharia is specifically and intentionally designed to defeat individual freedom and non-sharia governments by using the tolerance, freedom and laws that were the foundations of western societies against those societies. They intend to wear us down.  Free people can hope for reform of Islam, but we cannot reform Islam.  Muslims must reform Islam.  We can only protect reformers from the true believers who decimate them.  Only a fool ignores such things.

Islam shares with communism an impetus to defeat individual freedom.  But the people of Russia, China and Iran love their children too.  Most of the last two generations of Russians and Chinese today are not communist.  But many or even most in the Russian and Chinese government could still be true believers in communism.  They are members of the oligarchy.  They were indoctrinated and conditioned as most Muslims have been indoctrinated and conditioned.   There are millions of Muslims who have been trained for multiple generations to kill “non believers,” wherever they are.   The same was true for Russians and Chinese, but this is no longer true.  Russian and Chinese people are slowly gaining freedoms, but that has not happened in Islam-dominant nations.  Turks and Iranians have lost freedoms, as have Americans and Europeans.

An eyes-open relationship with both Russia and China would help to contain the global hegemony intentions of Islamists/Muslim Brotherhood.   NATO and the EU are not survivable on their present courses.  Iran is ripe for another violent internal revolution.

Ref: (1) https://conservativedailypost.com/french-now-preparing-for-civil-war-against-muslims-to-take-country-back/

Yes, and it would be great for all of us if almost all of these intelligent people in the intelligence community were intelligently employed in non-government, free market jobs. Secrecy inside government should be, must be, actively suppressed by citizen patriots. Otherwise those patriots become slaves.

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

Published on February 9, 2017

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

****

Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit www.drchemical.com.au

http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

“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