If you do not understand this graphic evidence, then please feel free to comment here. I am confident that over 30,000 scientists and professionals in all walks of life and countries will try to help.
Graphs by John Shewchuk, Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM). Lt Col, USAF Retired, Meteorologist. Creator of the RAOB Program Member: CO2 Coalition.
CO2 warming logarithmically decreases with increasing CO2. This graph does not include the cooling affects of increasing CO2 and the overall cooling from clouds.
Argentina’s newly elected President Javier Milei cuts almost a dozen government ministries on his first day in office
By Mike LaChance Dec. 11, 2023 8:40 pm at The Gateway Pundit
Argentina’s new President Javier Milei promised the people of his country that if elected, he would slash the size of their government and so far, he is delivering.
On his first day in office, he cut the number of government ministries from 21 to 9 and he is probably not even finished yet.
The departments he cut are largely the ones based on progressive ideas like social justice. He is clearly serious about radical reform for Argentina.
And..
Javier Milei Takes Office in Argentina, and His First Move Immediately Triggers All the Right People
HINT: If the GOP wants to control both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House, then announce this strategy now (a year before the November 2024 elections) and begin the body of legislation, public and media relations and promotion of the candidates who truly support large downsizing of the federal government and discretionary budget. The line is drawn GOP. Are you on the side of ‘We The People’?
Stop asking for donations. GOP does not deserve them.
I object to conditions on WinRed donations forms. Responding to WinRed means I would be bombarded with donation requests from many candidates, many I have never heard of and many do not say what state they are running in or anything about their policies. I do not believe out of state, out of district money should be flowing in to influence elections.
Fix something, fix anything.
Fix the major ongoing problems with election integrity, vote rigging, mail in ballots, corrupted voter roles, abuse of the election process and candidates like Trump by the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies.
Get money and lobbyists out of politics.
Repeal Patriot Act.
Repeal Espionage Act and start over.
Repeal Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 and start over, prohibit federal agencies from writing and enforcing their own policies and regulations…legislation is the job of Congress, not agencies of the Executive Branch. By this ACT in 1946 an over-trusting Congress, SCOTUS, and American public allowed the Congress to hand over its most important duty authorized by the Constitution, i.e., the ability to debate and legislate on behalf of the people. That sacred duty was handed over to the cabinet agencies and bureaucracies of the Executive Branch of the President. This was and is today a breach of the constitutional premise of separation of power of the three branches of government.
Defund and shut down several federal agencies, including Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, reorganize Homeland Security, reorganize Pentagon.
Halt immediately the funding of UN and UN IPCC and EPA actions and policies regarding CO2 and greenhouse gases.
Get the corrupt UN out of the USA.
Defund withdraw from W.H.O.
Prohibit federal funding, subsidies, and tax benefits and attendees to W.E.F.
Prohibit so-called “15 minute cities.” Investigate and prosecute climate change/global warming fraud. “Net Zero”, and efforts to control the sovereign Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of individuals including the right to travel when and where they want, live where they want, and own real property where they want. Permanently guarantee and confirm that is the federal government’s responsibility to protect the rights and sovereignty of individuals against invasive practices, laws, rules and regulations of the federal bureaucracy, state, county and city governments and also against incursions and demands by international agencies such as the U.N., W.H.O., World Bank, I.M,F., B.I.S., etc.
Halt all funding for diversity, equity and inclusion in government and private sector.
Open federal lands for oil, gas, coal exploration and production. Build energy oil and gas pipelines.
Halt all subsidies, loans and support for so called renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass in the U.S. economy. At most, such support should be confined to funding of projects in one of the federal science research foundations such as NSF or NIST at Department of Commerce.
Reverse Biden EV subsidies and regulations on CO2 emissions.
Completely reorganize EPA to focus it on real pollution rather than climate change fraud.
Prohibit any and all funding of FDA and NIH or its scientists and administrators bureaucrats by corporations, for example pharmaceutical companies.
Authorize and use the U.S. military to hunt down and remove all illegal aliens from the USA, especially those already in prison. Do not wait for illegal aliens to possibly appear in court, they should wait in line for citizenship while residing in their home country. Outlaw so-called “anchor-chain” babies and guaranteed citizenship to children born in the U.S.A. The U.S. is only one of a few countries that allows this practice. Formally recognize that the U.S.A. is being intentionally invaded and its culture subverted. Reduce the legal rate of immigration to a sustainable level that does not cause taxation or other burden upon U.S. citizens; applicants for citizenship must demonstrated ability to care for and fund themselves without welfare assistance from any level of government. U.S. immigration law must have specifically defined preference for merit-based highly qualified individuals in professions and careers areas for which there is substantial demand in America, and who wish to fully assimilate into American culture and contribute to American national and individual sovereignty. Refugee programs must be heavily reformed or eliminated.
Fund and re-write or repeal laws for protecting the U.S. border and laws for immigration so that these laws benefit and protect U.S. citizens rather than immigrants and corporations.
Prohibit the ownership of U.S. lands and properties by foreign governments with the exception of embassies and consulates, and prohibit ownership of U.S. lands and properties by foreign owned corporations, agencies or affiliates, etc.
Audit the Federal Reserve. Pass legislation to restore the U.S. dollar to the U.S. government and Treasury Department. Return the U.S. dollar to an asset-based currency. Permanently prohibit the debt-based U.S. dollar. Require a balanced federal budget. Prohibit deficit spending except in specifically defined cases of national emergency.
Restore to the Congress the sole authority to declare war. Return U.S.A. to a strong defensive posture. Formally reject the continuing wars of U.S. hegemony and the Brzezinski “Grand Chessboard” of world domination. Reorganize the U.S. Department of State to align with this defensive posture. Prohibit influence of Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and their unelected and foreign members in selection of the President’s Cabinet officers and advisors.
Remove jihadist Muslim immigrants and their mosques from the U.S.A. Prohibit and outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood, C.A.I.R., Hamas, Hezbollah and similar insurrectionists organizations and policies in the U.S.A. Prohibit and enforce the Islamic practices of female mutilation, honor killing, polygamy, child brides, pedophilia, prohibit anti-democracy and anti-American preaching and instigation, permanently prohibit and enforce discrimination of other religions and non-Muslim persons by Muslims. Outlaw pervasive anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, preaching and instigation within the U.S.A. Permanently prohibit the creation by Muslims of no-go communities where it is unsafe for non-Muslims, police, firefighters, etc. Clearly outlaw the anti-U.S.A. agenda of Muslims and protect peaceful Muslims who work to reform the prevalent medieval practices of their Islamic culture and religion. Protect reformist Muslims against those Muslims who would enforce medieval practices. Require assimilation of Muslims applying to be U.S. citizens or else immediately deport them. Make it clear and enforce laws against insurrection and cultural subversion, making it certain that these are illegal and will result in immediate deportation or prison.
Outlaw the acceptance of any political contribution from corporations, PACS, and non-human individuals by candidates for federal office. Outlaw the acceptance by candidates for federal offices of political contributions by individuals who are not resident citizens and registered voters in the state, counties and communities, districts which would be represented by the candidate. This is interstate commerce in its most intrusive and damaging form.
Of course I recognize that the GOP does not have the balls nor the integrity to do any of this. I fully expect they will remain part of the Washington D.C. uni-party until they are rejected one-by-one by the voters as the voters continue to awaken.
Music video below launched November 17, 2023, Showcases the Doobie Brothers, together with Pat Simmons, Tom Johnston, Michael McDonald, and John McFee. They joined forces with Mick Fleetwood, Jake Shimabukuro, and Henry Kapono.
It’s by far the most important scientific question of our age: Do human emissions of CO2 and other such “greenhouse gases” cause significant global warming, aka “climate change”? Based on the belief that an affirmative answer to that question is a universally accepted truth, our government has embarked on a multi-trillion dollar campaign to transform our economy by, among other things, eliminating hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation (without any demonstrated workable plan for the replacement), outlawing the kinds of vehicles we currently drive, suppressing fossil fuel extraction, banning pipeline construction, making all your appliances work less well, and much more. Express any doubt about the causal connection between human activities and climate change, and you could very well get labeled as a “climate denier,” fired from your academic job, demonetized by Google or Facebook, or even completely ostracized from polite society.
But is there actually any real proof of the proposition at issue? In fact, there is not.
I had two important posts on this subject back in 2021: one from January 2, titled “Causation Of Climate Change, And The Scientific Method,” and the other from October 28, titled “‘The Climate Is Changing And Human Activities Are The Cause’: How, Exactly, Do We Know That?” Those posts covered the basics of how causation is generally established under the scientific method. Those posts also reviewed certain articles published at the time that gave good reasons to doubt the truth of the proposition that human greenhouse gas emissions are a main driver of significant climate change. Go to those posts for discussions of and links to the 2020/21 articles that I reviewed at the time.
The reason for today’s post is that a couple of important new articles have come to my attention that further make clear that the proposition that human activities, particularly “greenhouse gas” emissions, are causing significant climate change has not been proved and, based on existing data, cannot be proved. I’ll provide links and summaries, and let you draw your own conclusions as to the significance of these new articles.
But before that, let’s review one more time the basics of how causation is extablished under the scientific method. This is from my January 2, 2021 post:
We start with the basic maxim that “correlation does not prove causation.” Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses. Everybody knows how this works from drug testing. We can’t prove that drug A cures disease X by administering drug A a thousand times and observing that disease X almost always goes away. Disease X might have gone away for other reasons, or on its own. Even if we administer drug A a million times, and disease X almost always goes away, we have only proved correlation, not causation. To prove causation, we must disprove the null hypothesis by testing drug A against a placebo. The placebo represents the null hypothesis that something else (call it “natural factors”) is curing disease X. When drug A is significantly more effective at curing disease X than the placebo, then we have disproved the null hypothesis, and established, at least provisionally, the effectiveness of drug A.
And yet somehow these principles don’t apply in the field of climate science. Instead, all the inside clique of the climate science community have decided to agree that the new way to prove causation is to show really, really good correlation with the preferred hypothesis, in which case subjecting the proposition at issue to a test of invalidation against a null hypothesis can be dispensed with. The climate science community calls its system for establishing causation “detection and attribution” studies. The basic idea is to come up with a model (i.e., a hypothesis) that predicts global warming based on increased greenhouse gases, and then collect data that show a very close match between what the model predicted and the data. Correlation with the model predictions is the claimed proof of causation. There are hundreds of such studies in the climate literature. My January 2, 2021 post linked to a classic of the genre, a 2018 IPCC-sponsored article written by a collection of some 36 co-authors who constitute a virtual “who’s who” of the insiders of the climate science cult (e.g., Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, etc., etc., etc.). The title is “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” Key quote:
There is a wide range of evidence of qualitative consistencies between observed climate changes and model responses to anthropogenic forcing, including global warming, increasing land-ocean temperature contrast, diminishing Arctic sea-ice extent, glacial retreat and increases in precip- itation in Northern Hemisphere high latitudes.
Just get yourself enough “qualitative consistencies” with your hypothesis and proof of causation will be yours!
The authors of the two new papers beg to differ. First, we have a paper by John Dagsvik and Sigmund Moen of Statistics Norway, dated September 2023, titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”This paper is particularly significant because it has been issued by a governmental agency — the government statistical agencies being otherwise all in lockstep in support of the human-caused global warming narrative. Excerpt from the Dagsvik and Moen paper (page 5):
At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made). This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media. For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023). By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs). Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.
And the conclusion of Dagsvik and Moen (from the abstract):
[W]e find, . . . that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
A good deal of the discussion in Dagsvik and Moen covers various deficiencies and inadequacies of the existing temperature data series — inadequacies that make it impossible to draw conclusions from existing data about causation of temperature increases from human greenhouse gas emissions. Here is one comment on the data from page 10 that I find particularly significant:
For all three surface air temperature records, but especially NCDC and GISS, administrative changes to anomaly values are quite often introduced, even for observations several years back in time. Some changes may be due to the delayed reductions of stations or addition of new station data, while others probably have their origin in a change of technique to calculate average values. It is impossible to evaluate the validity of such administrative changes for an outside user of these records.
For more than you will ever want to know on that subject, see my thirty part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.” Bureaucrats altering the data to support their preferred narrative have rendered the data completely useless for any legitimate public policy purpose.
A second important new paper is from Antonis Christofides and co-authors dated September 26, 2023. They introduce their paper with a long post of that date at Climate, Etc. titled “Causality and Climate.” The part of the full technical paper relating to the climate science application can be found at this link. If you go to that last link and try to read through it, you will find technical math that will quickly have your head swimming, even if you are a quasi math geek like myself. However, their fundamental point as to causality in climate science is not very complicated: if you plot recent temperature increases against increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s the temperature increases that come first, and the CO2 increases follow. Thus, if there is causality, it must be that the temperature increase is causing the CO2 increase, rather than the other way around.
Here is the key chart from the post at Climate, Etc.. The authors present it as a quiz: look at the chart, and the explanations, and without any further mathematical analysis, draw a conclusion as to the direction of causation:
From the technical paper:
[T]he surprising finding [is] that, while in general the causal relationship of atmospheric T and CO2 concentration, as obtained by proxy data, appears to be of hen-or- egg type with principal direction 𝑇 → [CO2], in the recent decades the more accurate modern data support a conclusion that this principal direction has become exclusive. In other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO2 concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception (and for this reason we have assessed the case with an alternative parametric methodology in the Supplementary Information, section SI2.4, with results confirming those presented here), in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early 19th century, when human CO2 emissions were negligible; hence other factors, such as the solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers), as well as internal long-range mechanisms of the complex climatic systems had to play their roles.
[Mr. Menton adds] I would make this comment as to both the Sagsvik and Christofides work: They both are using the only available data, which is data emanating from government sources that have been tampered with and altered. However, the important point is that even that data would appear to refute, and certainly does not prove, the endlessly repeated claims of impending climate doom from human CO2 emissions.
Professor Munshi, a statistician and business professor, in multiple papers concludes in the paper immediately, “We find that detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 does not support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis because no evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. These results are consistent with prior works that found no evidence to relate the rate of warming to the rate of emissions (Munshi, The Correlation between Emissions and Warming in the CET, 2017)(Munshi, Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Australia, 2017)(Munshi, Generational Fossil Fuel Emissions and Generational Warming: A Note, 2016)(Munshi, Decadal Fossil Fuel Emissions and Decadal Warming: A Note, 2015)(Munshi, Effective Sample Size of the Cumulative Values of a Time Series, 2016)(Munshi, The Spuriousness of Correlations between Cumulative Values, 2016).”
In other words, the work of Sagsvik and Christofides presented by Mr. Francis Menton above confirms the prior works of Dr. Jamal Munshi.
In the paper linked below on my blog, Dr. Munshi concludes:
“In this empirical study of historical [fossil fuel CO2] emissions data and historical CO2 concentration data of the oceans over a 57-year period from 1958 to 2014, we were unable to detect a correlation between the annual rate of emissions and the mean annual change in oceanic CO2. This correlation is a pre-condition to the anthropogenic ocean acidification hypothesis which holds that the annual rate of human emissions causes annual changes in oceanic CO2 concentration (Scripps, 2013)(NOAA-1, 2015).”
The ratio of CO2 gas concentration in ocean water versus CO2 gas concentration in air above ocean water is the Henry’s Law coefficient. In his papers linked above Dr. Munshi finds no correlation between the estimated trend of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels versus the NOAA-measured trend of net atmospheric CO2 concentration. In his paper linked below, Dr. Munshi also finds no correlation between the estimated trend of CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels versus the measured trend of mean annual change in oceanic CO2. Logically and mathematically, if fossil fuel CO2 emissions were causing increased CO2 concentration in air or ocean, then there must be positive correlations. Since these correlations are absent, then CO2 emissions from fossil fuel cannot be causing the slow, long-term trend in net global CO2 concentration commonly known as the Keeling Curve.
Palestinians and their allies have justified and even celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre in Israel as a blow against Jewish oppression. But the 2 million Arab citizens of Israel have overwhelmingly responded by drawing closer to the Jewish state.
Among Arab Israelis, prominent media personalities have helped lead an unprecedented surge in support for their country and opposition to their self-proclaimed liberator Hamas. Pro-Israel arguments that were previously almost unspeakable in the Arab mainstream have in recent weeks gotten a respectful hearing.
Yoseph Haddad, a 38-year-old Christian Arab influencer, has skyrocketed to fame in Israel with his outspoken advocacy for the country in Hebrew, Arabic, and English. Haddad told CNN on Oct. 22 that Hamas’s attack was a wakeup call for the Arabs who constitute about 20 percent of Israel’s population.
“We literally felt that Hamas could have conquered the south and then the center and also the north of Israel, where the majority of Arab Israelis are staying, and we had a very bad feeling about it,” said Haddad, who has more than 1.5 million followers across social media. “Immediately my friends and colleagues here said, ‘That’s the last thing that we want. We don’t want to live under a terrorist organization. We want to live in a democracy, and that’s what the state of Israel is.’”
In this way, at least, Hamas’ barbarity on Oct. 7—killing and abducting hundreds of civilians, including dozens of Arab Israelis—has strengthened Israel and weakened those who accuse the country of apartheid or genocide.
“It’s astonishing that around the world, some prominent Jews have condemned Israel for its self-defensive reaction to terrorism,” Nimrod Nir, a social scientist and pollster at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the Washington Free Beacon. “But here in Israel, the vast majority of Arab citizens legitimize the country’s response.”
Haddad noted that a number of BedouinIsraelis heroically saved Jews on Oct. 7. He said many Arabs agree with his advocacy for social integration but have been silenced by the types of extremists who constantly threaten him and his family. However, the “silent voice” of Arab society has grown louder since Hamas’s attack, he said.
Lucy Aharish, 42, Israel’s first Arab mainstream news anchor, endorsed the country’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in an Oct. 13 “message to the world.”
“Our beloved country is under attack … [from] a brutal, barbaric, inhumane terror organization,” Aharish said in English from her seat on Reshet 13 news. “Don’t be mistaken. We experience difficulties, disagreements, and major disputes, like any other country on this globe. But it does not mean that we will not protect ourselves and our children, our homeland.”
“As a Muslim, this is not Islam—what Hamas is doing in the name of religion—this is not being a Muslim,” she told CNN days later. “This is being a monster.”
“As a Muslim, this is not Islam — what Hamas is doing in the name of religion — they’re not Muslims. They’re monsters.”
Arab-Israeli TV anchor @lucyaharish joins us for a very emotional interview as Israelis of all backgrounds reel from Saturday’s attacks. pic.twitter.com/1i6K5bXGN1
Lucy Aharish, 42, Israel’s first Arab mainstream news anchor
Nuseir Yassin, the 31-year-old travel blogger behind the popular “Nas Daily” franchise, directly addressed the tension in Arab-Israeli identity when on Oct. 8 he declared himself Israeli first and Palestinian second.
“But from today forward, I view myself as an ‘Israeli-Palestinian,’” Yassin wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “Sometimes it takes a shock like this to see so clearly.”
Yassin, who has tens of millions of followers on social media and had previously criticized both Israel and the Palestinians, said Oct. 7 made him realize, “I do not want to live under a Palestinian government. Which means I only have one home, even if I’m not Jewish: Israel.”
Personal Thoughts: (not for everyone, feel free to skip)
For the longest time, I struggled with my identity.
A Palestinian kid born inside Israel. Like…wtf.
Many of my friends refuse to this day to say the word ‘Israel” and call themselves ‘Palestinian” only.
Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy replied to Yassin’s post in Hebrew, “You’re a king. [We] love you.”
According to a recent survey that Nir conducted for Hebrew University, 77 percent of Arabs oppose Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, and 66 percent believe Israel has the right to defend itself in response. Seventy-five percent expressed willingness to volunteer to help the victims, as many have already done.
During previous eruptions of Israel-Palestinian violence, Nir found sentiments were almost the inverse of today’s, with most Arab Israelis siding with Hamas over Israel. When Israel and Hamas clashed in May 2021, Arab-Israeli riots destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes and synagogues and left five people dead.
Nir said a major difference between now and then is the more constructive rhetoric from Arab-Israeli media figures and leaders, even as Hamas has called for a popular uprising against Israel.
“When ‘Nas Daily’ did what he did, for example, there was no Arab newspaper, radio show, TV station, or influencer who didn’t talk about it,” Nir said. “Even those who didn’t know his name met this debate everywhere they went, and that didn’t exist before.”
Meanwhile, Mansour Abbas, the head of the Islamist Ra’am party, has repeatedly condemned the terrorism of Oct. 7, including in an interview on Tuesday with the Arab-Israeli station Radio Nas.
“The massacre is against everything we believe in, our religion, our Islam, our nationality, our humanity,” [Mansour] Abbas said, adding that Hamas’ actions do “not represent our Arab society, nor our Palestinian people nor our Palestinian nation.”
Days earlier, Abbas demanded the resignation of Iman Khatib Yassin, a member of his party who denied that terrorists killed babies or raped women on Oct. 7.
But Khatib Yassin has refused to step down, and her comments were not anomalous. A popular Arab-Israeli actress was indicted last week for cheering Hamas’s attack on Instagram—one of dozens of such cases. Days later, three Arab Israelis were arrested on suspicion of plotting another terror attack on Israelis.
Thabet Abu Ras, the co-executive director of Abraham Initiatives, a nonprofit that promotes Arab-Israeli integration, told the Free Beacon that the Jewish state’s war against Hamas is just as bad as Oct. 7 and will quickly reverse Arab citizens’ newfound goodwill toward Israel.
“We cannot disconnect ourselves from our people, the Palestinians, any more than we can disconnect ourselves from our country, Israel,” Abu Ras said. “We must have an immediate ceasefire or Arab-Jewish relations will be set back 10 to 15 years.”
Israel has vowed to continue the war until Hamas’s capacity to threaten the country is destroyed.
To the extent Arab Israelis remain opposed to terrorizing the Jewish state, it will be a break with the Palestinian mainstream in Gaza and the West Bank. Public opinion polls in the territories have long found overwhelming backing for the stabbing, shooting, and suicide bombing of Israeli civilians in the name of national resistance.
In 2008, for example, 84 percent of Palestinians approved of a terror attack in which a Palestinian gunman shot 19 Jewish children at a school in West Jerusalem, killing 8 of them, according to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.
Supporters of the Palestinians around the world appear to hold similar views about violence against Israel. That includes in the United States. A high-quality poll of American Muslims released last week found that 58 percent believe Hamas was justified in its actions on Oct. 7, which are said to include torturing families in their homes, raping women and children, and beheading and cooking babies alive.
In Washington, D.C., on Sunday, tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters chanted for Israel’s destruction: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” Slogans daubed outside the White House included “Death to Israel” and “Glory to our martyrs.”
Joe Biden is caught in a quadfecta of corruption, cognitive decline, a failed agenda, and eroding polls. Amid this apparent vacuum, an opportunistic Barack Obama — who used to be more discreet in managing his third term—is reentering the arena.
Last week, he came out as the overseer of the Biden administration’s AI agenda, even as his foundation’s “Democracy Forum” was warning Americans about the need for “inclusive capitalism” and the pathologies of “material consumption”—all this from a multi-mansioned multimillionaire.
Now, Obama is weighing in on the Gaza war by undercutting his third-term presidential proxy.
Yet just as he seems somewhat clueless about the contradictions of an erstwhile “community organizer” turned into a hyper-capitalist, consumption-addicted elite, so too Obama has little self-awareness about how much of Biden’s unpopularity derives from his continuation of Obama’s own agendas on the economy, border, crime, race, foreign policy, and energy.
His apparent obliviousness continues with his most recent odd assertion that, “The occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is [sic] unbearable.”
But Obama surely concedes that Gaza has been autonomous and free of Israelis since 2005, and governed by a “one man, one vote, once” Hamas clique since January 2006.
Obama added that, “If you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth, and you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean – that all of us are complicit to some degree.”
In truth, Obama’s blanket accusation is absurd.
Over the last 17 years, an autonomous Hamas has managed to create both a hierarchy of billionaires ensconced in luxury Qatari hotels, and the most sophisticated subterranean tunnel city in the world—but little else except corruption, poverty, and violence for all concerned.
Obama again seemed unaware of his own confession when he lectured, “nobody’s hands are clean” and “all of us are complicit”.
Not quite, Barack. Those most culpable for the current catastrophe are Obama and his team, who invited in Robert Malley to be their point man on Hamas; cooked up the “Shiite crescent” misadventure; snubbed the grass-roots Green Movement that sought to overthrow the Iranian theocracy; invited the Russians back into the Middle East after a 40-year hiatus; fled Iraq and fueled the ISIS caliphate; lifted sanctions on Iran, giving it a multibillion-dollar war chest that armed to the teeth Hezbollah and Hamas; estranged the U.S. from Israel; and created the media echo chamber that empowered the disastrous Iran Deal.
Miss Iraq on the Real Agenda of Hamas: Link below to Full Interview With Sarah Idan
“They do not seek to free the Palestinians. They seek to eradicate the Jewish people. They seek to eradicate Israel. And then after that, they would come after Christians, they would come after everyone, because this is the mentality of radical Islam. They want to take over the world, and we keep saying that. And when we say that, we get labeled as ‘Islamophobes,’” says Ms. Idan.
Sarah Idan grew up an Iraqi Muslim under Saddam Hussein and represented Iraq in the Miss Universe beauty pageant in 2017. She never imagined that a photo would ultimately force her family to have to flee the country.
“During that time, I was getting all the antisemitism, all the hate that you would get if you’re a Jewish person. And I had no idea what the Jewish people had to deal with until that moment,” says Ms. Idan.
“We took a selfie together and we just said, ‘Love and peace from Miss Iraq and Miss Israel.’ And we posted it and we went to sleep. And then, the next morning when I woke up, basically my phone was blowing up with messages from the Miss Iraq organization, from my family, from strange numbers, and I didn’t know what was going on.”
Today, she is a human rights activist who speaks out against antisemitism and Islamic fundamentalism.
Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Here is some additional information along with references for your consideration.
The hypothetical equilibrium condition for Henry’s Law means that the ratio of the number of gas molecules of a specific gas being absorbed by a liquid surface versus the number of molecules of the same gas being emitted from that liquid surface is a constant for the given temperature of the surface. Unlike total pressure of mixed gases where at equilibrium the amount of total gas emitted equals amount of total gas absorbed, instead, Henry’s Law applies to partial pressure of a single specific gas, wherein, the ratio absorption vs emission of the single gas is the Henry’s Law partition ratio, or coefficient. Absorption and emission are occurring simultaneously, but not at the same rate. The absorption rate of a specific gas like CO2 into water surface can be increasing while simultaneously the rate of emission of CO2 from the nearby water surface can also be increasing; the conditions causing these two opposing perturbations to the Henry’s Law partition ratio for CO2 gas and water are different in the gas matrix and the liquid matrix.
When CO2 is added to air by burning fossil fuels, other sources of CO2 are naturally reduced and/or sinks are naturally increased so that the Henry’s Law ratio is maintained for the surface local temperature. It is a dynamic equilibrium and the control knob for the gas concentration, if you will, is the Henry’s Law ratio at the local surface temperature. CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere as hundreds of scientists and millions of dollars spent on annual carbon budgets attempt to persuade. CO2 has been increasing slowly in recent years because sea surface temperatures (SST) have been increasing in recent years. If and when SSTs begin decreasing, the CO2 concentration in air will also begin declining, though this decline is slow due to the enormous (orders of magnitude) higher heat capacity of ocean compared to atmosphere. For now, slowly warming SST and rising CO2 are both good for life.
Warming and cooling of ocean are very slow processes requiring centuries or millennia due to the enormous heat capacity of the ocean. The causes of warming and cooling are beyond the scope of this email except to point out firmly that they are definitely not caused by human-produced CO2; this statement does not require refutation or denial of the so-called “greenhouse gas” theory, radiative emission theory, carbon budgeting, feedbacks, etc.
The Henry’s Law coefficient is usually defined as kH = ca/pg
Where:
kH is the Henry’s Law constant, or coefficient or partition ratio and refers to standard conditions, T = temperature = 298.15 K = 25 degrees C, and total pressure is 1 atm.
ca is the concentration of the unreacted solute trace gas in the liquid phase
pg is the partial pressure of the same solute gas in the gas phase in continuous contact with the surface of the liquid phase.
This version of Henry’s Law above requires calculations and measurements in volume for pg.
One of the common problems encountered with Henry’s Law is its dependence on temperature. kH is a constant (or coefficient, or ratio) that varies with temperature. This is not a simple matter. Temperature is a co-dependent variable with many other natural variables, including CO2 concentration, water vapor concentration, etc. For example, one of the teachers for chromatography classes for the American Chemical Society, who was one of the founding fathers of gas chromatography, published errors of Henry’s Law constants derived for temperature ranges; he was not alone. No doubt my own writings in my blog have errors too. Derivation of Henry’s law constants as a function of temperature is based on solution of the Clapeyron or Van Hoff equations formulated for water-gas equilibrium. The Clausius – Clapeyron equation specifies the temperature dependence of vapor pressure at a phase transition of a single gas between two phases of matter. Great care is required with the units. I will not go through the math of this except to present it since we will not need it or use it here.
dln kH/dT = ∆Hdis/RgT2
Where:
∆Hdis is the enthalpy (or heat) of dissolution of the gas solute in water
Rg is the gas constant
T is temperature in Kelvin.
Henry’s Law constant for CO2 gas and water solution. (as given in reference 5 below)
kH(T) = k°H exp(d(ln(kH))/d(1/T) ((1/T) – 1/(298.15 K))) k°H = Henry’s law constant for solubility in water at 298.15 K (mol/(kg*bar)) d(ln(kH))/d(1/T) = Temperature dependence constant (K)
For our purposes studying CO2, atmospheric gases and Henry’s Law, a different derivation of Henry’s Law is much more convenient. Rolf Sander provides this derivation. The Henry’s Law coefficient is derived in its dimensionless (or unitless) form as the quotient (or ratio) of the molar concentration of the unreacted solute gas dissolved in the liquid phase matrix divided by the molar concentration of the same solute gas in the gas phase matrix. It is dimensionless since the units drop out when dividing molar mass by molar mass. But, the derivation of Henry Law for its dependence on temperature is still difficult. Today fortunately we look up Henry’s coefficients in reference books or by online software and then carefully verify the units since these experiments have been done thousands of times. There is a different kH for each gas and liquid combination and each temperature.
Henry’s Law expert Rolf Sander provides further expansion of various derivations in section 4.2 of the IUPAC Recommendations 2021 paper with other detail on the other forms of Henry’s law for various purposes here: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2020-0302/html and references (4) and (5) below.
These two equations for Henry’s law, the partial pressure version above and the dimensionless version below, are related through the Ideal Gas Law:
kH = kH x RT
Where:
R = the gas constant, which relates the energy scale in thermodynamics and physics to the temperature scale and the scale used for the amount of a substance such as moles:
T = temperature in Kelvin.
The dimensionless version of Henry’s Law:
kH = ca/cg
Where:
kH = the Henry’s Law coefficient
ca = concentration of the gas in moles in the aqueous phase
and cg is concentration of the same gas in the gas phase above the liquid/gas surface.
Generally, the dimensionless version is most convenient because the defacto NOAA-Scripps Mauna Loa “gold standard” CO2 data has been diligently measured and reported for many decades as micromoles of CO2 per mole of dry air. Micromoles of CO2 per mole of dry air is identical to ppm, parts per million by mass. This is a mass measurement, not a volume measurement, which is far more practical, precise and accurate for measuring trends in atmospheric gases since air always contains the gas water vapor, the quantity of water vapor in air is highly variable which causes the sample volume to be highly variable. Water vapor concentration in air is normally 10 to 100 times higher than the trace gases like CO2, methane (CH4), etc. Also, water vapor and CO2 have overlapping wavelengths of infrared light used in measurement instrumentation. These are reasons NOAA-Scripps dries their air samples (by freezing) and measures by mass instead of volume, i.e., micromoles of CO2 per moles of dry air which equals ppm.
Important note: ppm is not the same as ppmv. This is a common and large source of error in measuring net CO2 trends compared to the minor annual change in net global CO2 concentration.
Henry law coefficients are available online, having been measured thousands of times for thousands of combinations temperatures, liquid solvents and gas solutes. The concentration of CO2 in water is easily calculated from the gas concentration and the Henry’s coefficient, but the CO2 and H2CO3 (carbonic acid) concentrations are difficult or impossible to measure in water with acceptable accuracy and precision because sampling procedures affect the hydration reaction.
The gas-water surface interface can be the surface of a bubble at 3000 meters depth in ocean, or the surface of a raindrop in a cloud at 3000 meters altitude, lung tissue, leaf tissue, or dominantly the surface of the ocean.
In a mixture of gases, the flux of one gas back and forth across the surface does not affect the flux of a different gas until concentrations are very high. This was demonstrated by Adolph Fick, a physiologist, who studied air gas fluxes in lung tissues, a contemporary of William Henry, Thomas Graham, and John Dalton.
In nearly pure water like raindrops, the aqueous CO2 gas concentration is high and the H2CO3 (carbonic acid) concentration is high relative to the HCO3– (bicarbonate) concentration. Thus raindrops are measured slightly acid. Carbonic acid is a weak acid. But those raindrops also absorb other gases of nitrogen and sulfur (for example near an urban area or a refinery) which create strong acids in water. In contrast, in seawater HCO3– is the dominant species because there are very many more ionic species (sodium, calcium, etc.) dissolved in seawater which easily pull the first hydrogen ion away from the H2CO3. The concentration of calcium ion by itself is about 4 times as abundant in seawater surface as the combined concentrations of unreacted CO2 gas, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion, and carbonic acid. The first dissociation constant for pulling away the first hydrogen atom from H2CO2 leaving HCO3– is very small and the reaction is nearly instant. So, dependent on the seawater conditions, HCO3– can be both a reaction product from the CO2 gas hydration reaction and also a reaction product from the dissociation reaction of H2CO3.
Graphics above from Andrew G. Dickson, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, INTRODUCTION TO CO2 CHEMISTRY IN SEA WATER.(6)
There are many simultaneous phenomena occurring at these air/liquid surfaces. I have not touched on most of them. The most important quantitatively is the physical phase state reaction, wherein the change in partial pressure of the solute gas within the gas matrix causes a proportional change in the solubility of that unreacted solute gas in the liquid phase. When humans or any other source add CO2 to air, then the solubility of CO2 gas in water increases proportionally to absorb that CO2 gas. Double the partial pressure of CO2, then solubility of CO2 in water doubles. And vice versa.
The Henry’s Law ratio is a variable of surface temperature, not a variable of the amount of gas present, and not a variable of the source of the gas; it applies to all gas solutes in low concentrations with respect to the liquid solvents with which they are in continuous contact. The ratio does not apply to any portion of the gas solute which has reacted with the liquid solvent itself or has reacted with any component dissolved in the liquid solvent. Residence time, or half-life, or residual fraction, of the CO2 in air are not variables in the Henry Law phase-state equilibrium and play no role in net global CO2 concentration.
Next in importance is to understand that the CO2 hydration reaction (CO2 + H20 <-> H2CO3) is nearly instantly reversible, for example by a very minor increase in water temperature, or agitation of the water, or change in other variables. Then the first dissociation constant K1, which is dissociation on one hydrogen away from H2CO3, this K1 is small, yielding HCO32-. The subsequent K2 dissociation reaction to CO32- is relatively larger. Both reactions are nearly instantly reversible. But the hydration reaction CO2 + H20 <-> H2CO3 is so fast it is unmeasurable. Sampling changes the measurement. Unfortunately many textbooks merge unreacted aqueous CO2 gas and H2CO2 into a single hypothetical entity, which has apparently led to misunderstanding.
There is a highly abundant (>90%) reservoir of these readily available carbonate ions in seawater surface thin layer and well mixed layer which are not unreacted aqueous CO2 gas but which are very rapidly convertible to unreacted aqueous CO2 gas when the unreacted aqueous CO2 gas in seawater is depleted. And vice versa. We have shown this in Bromley & Tamarkin (2022). Depletion of CO2 in air as well as CO2 in water occurs by many different processes, and addition of CO2 to air and water occurs by many different processes. For example, outgassing of CO2 from water to air occurs to rebalance to Henry’s Law coefficient when CO2 concentration in air is being depleted by photosynthesis of land plants or by surface winds; conversely when aquatic plants like plankton bloom in ocean and absorb aqueous CO2 gas for their photosynthesis, then CO2 gas will be absorbed into water from air at higher ratio than is being emitted from water to air until the Henry’s Law coefficient is achieved for the water surface temperature. These opposing processes can and do occur simultaneously, which is probably a reason climatologist rarely if ever attempt to model Henry’s Law.
To summarize so far, when the approximately 1% of aqueous CO2 gas is either increased or decreased by any amount, due to any source or sink, this perturbation causes a recovery (following le Chatelier’s Principle) to rapidly return to that 1% by the using ocean’s chemistry systems, and there is an abundant reservoir of ionic carbonates in ocean water to achieve that recovery. In other words, the amount of CO2 emitted by humans replaces naturally emitted CO2 in the phase-state equilibrium, rather than accumulating in the atmosphere in addition to naturally occurring CO2. There is no CO2 accumulation in atmosphere. The ~1% can be perturbed in both directions by changes in temperature, salinity, pH, alkalinity, and by changes in partial pressure of the CO2 in the water or in the air. Adsorption and emission of CO2 are simultaneous and continuous in both directions at normal earth temperatures since CO2 molecules are continuously colliding with the surface and being emitted from the surface. The rate of absorption vs emission is the Henry’s Law coefficient for the local water temperature.
It is very important to mention that CO2 gas molecules and the three forms of carbonate ions (H2CO3, HCO32-, CO32-) do not need to migrate in water more than molecular distances to react with each other. Scientific publications which are adopted into the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) orthodoxy and climate models, for example work by (1) Bert Bolin (1960) first administrator of UN IPCC, and (2) Broecker and Peng (1974), and others, considered the thickness of the water thin layer and limited their calculus of aqueous CO2 migration to thickness of the water matrix. They define the chemical pathways that convert CO2 to HCO3– and vice versa as “chemical enhancement.” They calculate based on the thickness of the thin layer and migration time of the carbon species in the ocean matrix, however they ignore an equally critical variable which is the surface area of the gas – liquid interface, omitting more than 100 million square miles of air-water surface interface. This appears to be a major mistake in the AGW orthodoxy and modeling. Keep in mind that in these years of early papers seminal to IPCC orthodoxy, CO2 emissions were said to cause global cooling; I speculate they were focused on their modeling methods rather than empirical observations.
For example, “The rate limiting step for removal of anthropogenic CO2 from the air is vertical mixing within the sea rather than transfer across the air-sea interface.”(2) This statement conflicts with Fick’s 1st Law of net flux of gases.
Why did Bolin and Broecker & Pang (for example) consider only thickness of the ocean thin layer and not the huge square surface area of ocean? It is a puzzle for me. The 3 carbonate ionic species are distributed throughout the area of the thin layer as well as the well mixed layer beneath it and they surround the uncharged aqueous CO2 gas molecules in the thin layer and well mixed layer in a ratio of over 9:1. If the uncharged aqueous CO2 gas molecule is removed from the liquid matrix by either outgassing or by absorption into aquatic plants, then the carbonate reactions reverse and produce more uncharged aqueous CO2 gas molecules. And vice versa. And when the carbonate ion CO32- reacts with for example a very abundant ion such as calcium Ca2+ and solidifies, then the carbonate ion in water is thus reduced one for one. CO32- +Ca2+ = CaCO3 . Then as a consequence of this reaction (which occurs in warmer water near the surface, and reverses in colder deeper, higher pressure water), the prior carbonate and the hydration reactions are forced to re-equilibrate by absorbing more CO2 from air. Thus, there is a perpetual CO2 gas sink rate absorbing CO2 from air even while warming SST is slowly increasing outgassing CO2. These simultaneously opposed dynamic processes are mediated by Henry’s Law and the carbonate reactions.
Attached is a pdf (reference 3) which documents one of several gas chromatographic (GC) methods to quantify Henry’s Law coefficients. To use this method for CO2, since CO2 does not burn in the flame ionization detector (FID) flame, instead the effluent from GC column is passed first over a rubidium catalyst which stoichiometrically converts the CO2 to CH4, and then the effluent is directed onward to the FID where the CH4 is ionized and quantified. Alternatively, the FID can be replaced by a mass spectrometer and no catalyst is needed. I am pointing out that there is no mystery in Henry’s Law, there are many of these methods well documented by theory and experiment, but AGW proponents either ignore it or fail to understand it or both.
Lee, S-H. et al, A Laboratory Experiment To Measure Henry’s Law Constants of Volatile Organic Compounds with a Bubble Column and a Gas Chromatography Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID).(attached pdf, copyrighted.)
The human-CO2-caused climate change/global warming agenda is a fraud, a scientific fraud, moral fraud and legal fraud. This fraud is and will do great damage to our island and people by those who may have good intent but are unfortunately following bad advice. Dr. Thomas Sowell explains the ‘racket’ in this short video excerpt.
Thomas Sowell Rips the Mask Off the Global Warming/Climate Change ‘Racket’
Addition or subtraction of CO2 to or from the atmosphere by any source cannot change CO2 concentration in air except very temporarily. CO2 concentration in air is controlled by a law of physics known as Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law states that an increase in partial pressure of any gas in the atmosphere causes a proportionate increase in solubility of the same gas into liquids which are in contact with that gas. In other words, if the concentration of CO2 gas were doubled, for example by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, then the solubility of CO2 gas by ocean (~70% of earth’s surface) and water everywhere is doubled. All of the added gas is absorbed by the liquid so that the CO2 concentration in air is maintained according to the temperature of water surfaces. All life on earth evolved under this condition.
Oil companies did not deceive Hawaiians. There is no human-CO2-caused climate crisis. CO2 is not pollution and humans cannot change its concentration in air. CO2 is necessary for plants and the only way CO2 gets into plants is by absorption of CO2 from air. It is the proponents of human-CO2-caused climate change who are deceiving people; politicians, judges, educators and NGOs are participating in that fraud by misfeasance and/or malfeasance. The damages to people, business and lands from the misfeasant and malfeasant federal regulations and Hawaii Law will accumulate. The only crisis is that representatives of the people have been persuaded by a false political agenda.
Hawaii County must continue to protect this island and its inhabitants regardless the mistaken Hawaii state law, federal EPA regulations and Hawaii Supreme Court all of which rely upon politically motivated UN and IPCC. Just “following orders” does not relieve responsibility for due diligence and public duty. Do your due diligence. It is time for Hawaii County to step up and counter Hawaii’s mistaken “green” law before it is too late.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.