Former Secret Service Agent interviewing former FBI Agent now a criminal defense lawyer. They know the legal impact of their words. Listen or watch the interview.
“It was a setup.”
“Don’t trust anything the FBI or DOJ says.”
‘Don’t fire only Director Wray, clean out the entire 7th floor of the FBI building.’
“Democrats want to make the IRS larger than the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol combined. That’s a terrible idea. We should abolish the IRS!”
IRS is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. It writes onerous and complicated interpretations of tax law and collects taxes from law abiding American citizens and companies, militarily raids and hounds conservatives, but ignores politically favored groups such as illegal aliens and politicians.
“Agreed. Since I retired from the FBI in January and began my run for Congress I have been warning Americans of the FBI. The Agency had become the political law enforcement arm of the Biden Administration and the Justice Department was politically weaponized against conservatives.” — Steve Gray (@SteveGrayNJ4) August 9, 2022
As stated before on this blog, the FBI and DOJ have completely destroyed themselves. They are now equal to KGB, Stazi, NAZI SS, and the worst of the criminal agencies of totalitarian governments.
Congress, defund and shut down the FBI and DOJ immediately.
Dan Bongino, former U.S. Secret Service Agent, described the FBI’s Raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence: ‘This Is Some Third-World Bullshit Right Here’
“Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago this evening. Spencer wrote up the “siege” that’s taken place in Florida. FBI agents arrived unannounced and broke into the safe on the property. It was reportedly empty. The former president was not in the state; he’s in Trump Tower now. That’s another location that could be targeted within the coming days since it’s clear that the FBI has gone off the rails to prevent a duly elected president from running for office again. Trump’s 2024 plans are no secret, and it’s clear that this raid is the clearest example of the Department of Justice’s desperation in trying to derail a man from running for president again.” ~ Matt Vespa on Townhall.com https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/08/08/liberal-media-goes-bananas-over-fbi-raid-on-maralago-n2611457?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2
The FBI and DOJ are criminal organizations. They will be prosecuted along with the criminal Biden and Clinton families.
God, truth and justice will prevail.
Sunday 7 August 2022, 9 am: As of 3 minutes ago, the U.S. Senate is “debating” and will soon vote to tax Americans, supposedly, to control human-produced CO2 (which was less than 0.00025% of the atmosphere at the end of 2020), and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on their net zero fraud. If you are an American citizen, please call or write your Senators.
August 6, 2022 (Transmitted via Senator Hirono’s official website.) Also separately to Senator Brian Schatz thru his official website. I was a bit harder on Schatz since he is the chair of the partisan Democrat committee pushing this climate agenda. More on that here: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/climate https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/senate-democrats-are-getting-head-start-climate-change/593824/
Of course it is YOU and me and the resources of the planet that U.S. Democrats, your government wherever you live, UN IPCC, Global Resetters, world banks, etc. want to control through global governance.
Dear Senator Hirono, Dear Senator Schatz; [U.S. Senators of Hawaii, both Democrats]
I am responding to your email reply to me dated Fri 8/5/2022.
You are dangerously, irresponsibly, deadly misinformed about climate and energy. You and your ilk are harming Americans and your Hawaiian constituents, and also by extension people of the world, especially poor people in less developed countries.
Here is high school arithmetic and data from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory on Mauna Loa. No expensive computer models. No statistics. No estimates. No assumptions. Just data and arithmetic.
ppm is parts per million. That’s one molecule of CO2 per 999,999 other air molecules.
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2020 was 414.24 ppm.*
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2019 was 411.66 ppm.*
414.24 minus 411.66 = 2.58 ppm *
Net human CO2 for 2020 cannot exceed 2.58 ppm, that’s 0.000258% of air, i.e., the net CO2 increase due to all sources & sinks, human and natural, for year 2020 = 2.58 ppm or 0.000258%.
Net human CO2 cannot exceed 0.000258% of atmosphere in 2020. 2.58/414 = 0.0062 = 0.62% Net human CO2 cannot exceed 0.62% of net total CO2 for 2020.
(0.000258% of atmosphere* is the maximum possible net human CO2 increase for 2020 because that annual increase from 2019 to 2020 (i.e., 2.58 ppm), includes the increase in CO2 due to all CO2 sinks and all CO2 sources, human and natural, for that year. There is no CO2 “atmospheric fraction” hidden or accumulating somewhere. (I am using 2020 data in this example only because NOAA has not finalized 2021 data.)
In other words, even if that tiny amount was not absorbed by ocean, soil and plants, it is a very tiny amount of CO2 which cannot possibly cause any significant or even measurable amount of warming because the energy bands of CO2 gas in air are already saturated. And, scientific evidence shows maximum possible human CO2 is only a very minor perturbation to the slight trend in total CO2 (average trend since 1970 is 1.77 ppm per year) which is absorbed naturally.
Very dangerously, you and your Democrat colleagues and the UN, WEF, WHO and etc. are suppressing energy production from fossil fuels for no measurable reason. This climate change agenda is based on an academic climate model which is incapable of being validated. Bankers, IMF, World Bank etc are denying funding to companies and nations for fossil-fueled electric power. This is a deadly mistake and it is on you and your ilk. Shame on you.
Global warming proponents Dr. Ben Santer, Dr. Michael Mann et al authored a peer reviewed study in Nature Geoscience** and admitted that their climate models “substantially” overstate warming. “In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract. In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models. They continued, “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is SUBSTANTIALLY larger than OBSERVED,” reads the abstract. (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.
Real science and actual measured data clearly show that CO2 created by human-related activity is so small in relation to the CO2 derived from natural sources that eliminating all of the human-related CO2 would not change the earth’s climate one bit. In other words, the CO2 concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never existed. Why? Because, contrary to propaganda and mainstream media hype, CO2 added to the atmosphere only temporarily changes CO2 concentration. The ratio of CO2 and air versus CO2 in water is an intensive property of matter, like a molecular weight. We can only temporarily change that ratio, then it resets. The application of Henry’s Law and actual data clearly show this to be true. Oceans absorb and emit enormous amounts of CO2 in order to keep the earth’s atmosphere chemically balanced. Humans cannot change this by adding or subtracting CO2. To think otherwise is pure folly, wasteful, deadly and non-science.
Another misconception is that CO2 causes smog and is somehow unhealthy. Not true. Smog is comprised of other chemicals and has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 is not pollution. CO2 concentration as shown above is very low and it is plant food. Plans and investments to reduce CO2 is a global suicide mission. The planet needs more CO2, as the MIT and Princeton scientists at CO2 Coalition, Richard Lindzen and Will Happer, keep repeating: “There is no climate crisis.”
CO2 is required for photosynthesis. THE ONLY WAY CO2 gets into plants is by absorbing CO2 from the air. Without photosynthesis there would be no plant life and without plant life there would be no other life. More CO2 in the atmosphere results in more plant life (for food, etc.) and more oxygen in the atmosphere for humans and other life forms to breathe. In contrast, plans to reduce CO2 are deadly dangerous.
Given these facts, could you please explain to me why you continue to support the deadly, dangerous climate change narrative. Especially in view of the fact that converting America from an economy that is based on cost-effective and energy efficient fossil fuels to more expensive and less efficient solar and wind energy sources will cause all American goods and services to be more costly and less competitive in world markets. Not to mention the fact that the billions of tax dollars spent on such a conversion could be better spent on upgrading America’s eroding infrastructure, investing in fundamental research that will make America more competitive in the future and of course not spending the money at all in order to reduce America’s out of control national debt.
Very truly yours,
Mr Clare L Bromley III
Holualoa
*Tans, P. CO2 annual means 1959 -2020. NOAA and Scripps. Global Monitoring Laboratory. File Creation: Fri Mar 5 08:40:06 2021. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
** http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/SanterEtAlNatureGeosci17.pdf
August 2, 2022
Translation: Alaska is ours
Another article. Comments by a former U.S. General
Do the math.
It is maximum possible net human CO2 because the annual increase from 1969 to 1970 (i.e., 1.06 ppm), and the annual increase from 2019 to 2020 (i.e., 2.58 ppm), includes the increase in CO2 due to all CO2 sinks and all CO2 sources, human and natural, for those two years. There is no CO2 “atmospheric fraction” hidden or accumulating somewhere.
As stated previously on this blog, if net human CO2 emissions were causing the slope in net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration, then the two slopes must be parallel or intersect, that is, there must be a positive correlation. However, the two slopes are diverging over time, the correlation is negative, therefore net human emissions cannot be the cause of the increasing slope of net global average atmospheric concentration.
Using these same data 1970-2020, annual averages, there is an apparent increase of about 88.56 ppm (414.24 – 325.68) over the 50 years, which is only about 1.77 ppm per year. This is already a small amount and probably would be lost in the noise of the two giant fluxes, i.e., CO2 absorption flux and CO2 emission flux. But even that 1.77 ppm/yr needs further investigation. For example, there is the larger seasonality (i.e., the sharks teeth seasonal cycle) which has larger variation at some of the sampling locations than the 1.77 ppm/yr, but not at other locations. And no doubt there are other cycles to be found in the data, el Nino’s for example, and human population differences driving CO2 emission differences between northern and southern hemispheres.
Is this 1.77 ppm/yr a net accumulation of CO2? Or is this an adjustment of the partition ratio resulting from the phase-state reaction and partition of CO2 gas between air vs the environment, mostly ocean surface? Or, is the phase-state partition ratio perturbed by a trend in sea surface temperature? Or, perhaps perturbed by temperature, salinity, alkalinity or partial pressure changes at the measurement location?
NOAA-Scripps averages averages of averages, as they acknowledge in the footnote of the table in one of their papers copied below. It is well known that this is bad practice and results in errors. But it depends on how exactly it is done. To figure this out is time consuming, as you can imagine.
For example: the average of {2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2} is 2, (N=13) and the average of {4} is 4. (N=1). The average of the averages is 3. But the average of all numbers is 30/14 ≃ 2.14. It is possible to produce a trend in the data by averaging averages post data collection.
It is curious that they report – for 60 years – uncertainty of each annual mean of exactly 0.12. They define uncertainty, “The estimated uncertainty in the annual mean is the standard deviation of the differences of annual mean values determined independently by NOAA/ESRL and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.”
Is this apparent trend in CO2 concentration of 1.77 ppm per year real? And, what are the effects of suppression of the variance in the data due to the averaging of averages?
References:
Thoning, K., Tans, P., Komhr, W. 1989. Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory: 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data, 1974-1985. Journal of Geophysical Research.
Abstract: The first 12 years (1974–1985) of continuous atmospheric CO/sub 2/ measurements from the NOAA GMCC programs at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii are analyzed. Hourly and daily variations in the concentration of CO/sub 2/ due to local sources and sinks are described, with subsequent selection of data representing background concentrations. A digital filtering technique using the fast Fourier transform and low-pass filters was used to smooth the selected data and to separate the seasonal cycle.
Tans, P. CO2 annual means 1959 -2020. NOAA and Scripps. Global Monitoring Laboratory. File Creation: Fri Mar 5 08:40:06 2021. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Only the number is now $9 trillion according to McKinsey & Co.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.