Module Specification Form Module Title: The Roman Empire: Fill & Download for Free

http://armorial.library.utoronto.ca/sites/default/Brief-heraldic-guide.doc.pdfhttps://sites.google.com/site/caroluschess/heraldy/origin-of-heraldryBlack-a-moor heraldry can represent five categories of BlacksMuslim Blacks with their decapitated headsMoorish Islamic armies had huge contingents of black soldiers and mercenaries. In addition, countless Moorish pirates during Barbary slavery or Moorish admirals during Barbary wars were black skinned.Christian Blacks with headbands or wreaths and jewelryNorth-East Africans were among the Christian firsts and early Saints like Saint Maurice, the Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Emperors. These black saints also known as Holy Moors have a celestial status.Liberated Blacks with or without broken chainsThe word moor was a common term for African slaves. Many famous European abolitionists had a Moor's head on their coat of arms like Thomas Fowell Buxton.Black slaves and captives gorged with a collar or bound by a cordSir John Hawkins, a notorious and early British slaver had a crest with a demi-Moor.John Hawkins, Slavers, and Gentlemen Pirates (John Hawkins, Slavers, and Gentlemen Pirates)Crowned Blacks that represent Moors of royal birthSome of the oldest cities and dynasties in Europe were founded by the Moors, North and Saharan Blacks, including Romanized Moors. Some of these cities are : Mortain, Moreac, Morancé and Maure. The founders are all immortalized through Crowned Moor’s heads. They were regarded as royalty.Des Maures et des Sarrasins en FranceCourtesy of Google TranslateIt should be recalled that the Moors had settled in France before the Arab invasion: in fact, we know that the Roman Empire legionnaires rewarded its best by providing colonies in conquered territory.Some of these legionnaires were Moors, Mauritani capital of Morocco, and found their name in place names like Mortagne-au-Perche (Comitis Mauritaniae in 1086), Mortagne-du-Nord, Mortagne-sur-Gironde Mortagne-sur-Sevre or Mortain in the Channel. Maurs (Cantal, Sanctus Petrus Mauricis giving Mauros in 941 ad) is an ancient Roman position occupied by the Moorish mercenaries.Finally, of the name "maurus" are names from Latin men (Maurus, Maurinus, Mauritius, etc..) Or German (Maurus, Moro, etc.). Behind many place names.Troupes maures en Armorique au Bas Empire.Courtesy of Google TranslateTwo Moorish troops we see one in Vannes and the other in the Finistère, but, curiously, they are qualified by location Location: Osismiens and Venetians, not their place of origin, Mauritania Tingitane or Caesarean.Integrated in the Roman army, "Mauri" were troops auxiliary elite and were found in Syria, Dacia and Italy. Some cavaliry Moorish men sustained in Britain and Gaul, the revolt of Magnus Clemens Maximus was proclaimed emperor.Histoire, idéologie et stupidité: leçon d'histoire à Joseph FacalCourtesy of Google TranslateFrom the 3rd century, the Roman army was made up in particular of Nubian African soldiers and Garamantes. The latter were particularly renowned for their military bravery. The Garamantes were African soldiers from the central Sahara region also called the Tubu. Today the Tubu live mainly in the north of Chad and in the south of Libya. They are still known for their military bravery. Under the Roman Empire, these black soldiers participated in the conquest of what is today Great Britain. Over time, and following the fall of the Roman Empire, these black soldiers and knights eventually became part of European aristocracy and nobility.What's in a Name, MORTEN, from "The Peak Advertiser", DerbyshireWhat's in a Name ?MORTENThis is a copy of an article published in The Peak Advertiser, the Peak District's local free newspaper, on 6th December 1999, reproduced by kind permission of the author, Desmond Holden.The "What's in a Name" series has been a regular feature in the Advertiser.Articles are confined to the origins and meanings of surnames and Desmond regrets he is unable to undertake research into the genealogy, descent or family history of individuals.Editor's Note: Articles are provided for general interest and background only. They are not intended to provide an exhaustive treatise for any individual family history - investigations of which may yield quite different results. Or, in Desmond's own words:"In the end it must remain with individual bearers of the names to draw upon family traditions and to seek out such documentary evidence as is available to decide the matter for themselves."WHAT'S IN A NAME … Are you called MORTEN?(Variations: Mortan, Mortin, Mortyn, Morteyn, Mortain, Morton)A reader in Broken Cross (Macclesfield) asks about this name and mentions also Mortin. There must be many families which originally bore the name but have unwittingly converted to surnames such as Moreton or Morton. These are location-names and, along with the personal name Martin provide a ready source of confusion.As a starter, the name Morten is derived from a place called Mortain in Northern France (Manche). Geographically it stands on the southern part of the Cotentin Peninsula and in the Valley of the Selune about 25 miles east of Avranches and St. Michael's Bay into which the river flows. According to the guide books it is "picturesquely situated". The name is believed to be a corruption of "Mauritania". It takes that form in a reference dated 1096 to a Maurus de Mauritania.It is truly intriguing to speculate how the name of a province of the Roman empire (now Morocco and Algeria) occurs in Normandy. Of course, it might also be related to St. Maurus who was the leading disciple of St. Benedict. He was especially active in France and forms of his name were adopted and very popular among the Normans. In passing, both "Mauritania" and "Maurus" evolved from the classical expression "maurus" which evolved in English as "Moor".This was the general description in England for a dweller in North Africa until about the beginning of the 18th century. (Hence "Morocco" which means "The Land of the Moors"). Its ultimate origin is probably from a word in the Old Phoenician language, "mauharin", and which signifies "eastern". However, in the case of "Mortain" it must be left to specialists in French place-names to provide a more comprehensive discussion as to its precise origin and meaning.Continuing our account of the name "Morten" and its introduction into this island, it can be stated that people called Morten - or any of its variations - can have a very convincing claim to be associated with a predecessor who really did "come over" with William the Conqueror in 1066.Of course many families love to believe that they have origins in the landing of the Norman Duke. These families rely heavily on the inclusion of their name in the register of all the companions of William who confronted the English at Hastings. This register is called the "Battle Abbey Roll". It is now accepted that for the gratification of vanity, the Custodians of the Roll were not averse to taking back-handers and interpolating names. Like the genealogies published in "Burke's Landed Gentry" (1837) which a distinguished authority on the subject (Professor Freeman) described as "wild nonsense", the same professor called the Battle Abbey Roll a transparent fiction". "Well, perhaps he was being a bit severe but it is a fact that the Roll appears to have been compiled some 400 years after the event!!However in the case of "Morten" there is no dispute. The ancestor here is Count Robert de Mortain. Not only is he specifically mentioned in the chronicles of the Norman invasion but is even depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. It isn't everybody who can not only lay claim to a Norman ancestor but produce his portrait as well!Robert de Mortain took an active part in the landing and at the Battle of Hastings and was rewarded most lavishly by William for his support. His possessions in England were more extensive than any other follower. Most of them were in the south-west - so much so in fact, that he was once mistakenly given the title "Earl of Cornwall". He was the lord of nearly 200 manors in Yorkshire.Since it was very much in order during the Middle Ages for those who worked for great lords to adopt their names, it must follow that many people who bear this aristocratic name can only attribute it to this practice. Even so, it would have been a natural consequence, taking into account the extensive possessions of the Count de Mortain, for the name to have been more widely distributed than actually happens.Even allowing for modulations into "Moreton" or "Martin" the name is thinly distributed and only one place-name incorporates it: that is "Marston Moretaine" (sometimes "Morteyne") which is about 6 miles south of Bedford. The addition of the family name occurred about 1383 so the bearers of the name seem to have enjoyed some standing in the vicinity. Otherwise the family appears to have faded from sight.Apparently Count Robert's son, William, joined in an insurrection against King Henry I, and was defeated in the Battle of Tinchebrai (1106). Losing favour, he forfeited the title. No doubt better informed historians of the period can fill out details.For some reason the spelling "Mortin" is listed among names special to Derbyshire, but otherwise the name is rarely encountered except in Cheshire. Even in the south-western counties and also around Bedford, the local directories include few entries.The Derbyshire connection dates from 1219 and refers to a Eustace de Mortaine. The name has no Scots or Irish counterparts. Apart from the original bearer of the name, Robert, Count of Mortain, who died about 1091, only a - certain Thomas Morten (1836-1866) of Middlesex is mentioned in the standard biographies.…..A white nationalist posted the following passage on a popular forum.The Native people of England were Celt’s. The Celts were one of the White Tribes of Europe. Two thousand years ago, the Romans invaded England & they brought a bunch of Black Africans with them & they set about exterminating the White Britons, the White Britons fought with incredible courage, they had no fear of Death, but their style of warfare was fundamentally different to the Romans. The Celts were Manly fighters which liked to fight Man against Man, they possessed incredible courage, they fought naked & without armour, this made them easy targets for the Cowardly Roman Blacks, which only fought in legions all togather & covered in armour.Whole Tribes of the Native White Celtic Britons were wiped out. Even Babies were butchered in their Mothers arms. The White Tribes which surrendered to the Roman multi Race society, were put in chains & turned into White slaves & worked to death in the tin & copper mines, even little Children were worked to Death. The Girls were enslaved Raped & turned into prostitutes.But the White Tribes of Europe united against the Roman multi Race scum & brought their sick empire crashing to the ground & then the White Tribes of Europe came back into Briton & liberated it & drove out the foreign multi Race Roman/African invaders & reclaimed it for the White Tribes of Europe.Then we lived in peace until another bunch of Multi Race supporters arrived here a thousand years ago under a Curby the name of Willem the Conquer, his Norman invasion was Bank rolled by Jews & between the Normans & their Jewish financers, they conquered the Saxons & the Celts in Britain & then then invaded Ireland & started a War between Britain & Ireland which lasted almost a thousand years.The Normans & Jewish invaders declared themselves to be Royalty of Britain & Ireland, they destroyed our White Celtic & Saxon Tribal culture. These parasites are the ones who are still ruling our land & Lording it over us. For the last thousand years they have used us as cannon fodder for their War games. World War 1 & World War 2 was a Genocide of the White Race.Hundreds of Millions of the cream of the White Race were wiped out & replaced by Blacks from the Caribbean & Africa & they are encouraging these Blacks to Race Mix with our White Race, so that they can then call us a “Mongrel Nation” . They want our Beautiful White Race to become extinct, because they are jealous of us.….Presence and prestige, Africans in Europe: A history of Africans in Europe before 1918 (Communications from the Basel Africa bibliography ; v. 22): Debrunner, Hans W: Amazon.com: Books

Reasons (Revised 08/19/2020) to Believe that God is the One Uncaused Cause of All Caused Existence and How God Revealed Himself to Us through the Catholic ChurchParts of the argument for God's existence presented in steps 1 - 6 below are loosely based on the book, " The Soul's Upward Yearning" pages 322- 327 by Fr. Robert Spitzer.1) Regarding the source of existence, there are only two possibilities: things always existed and consequently, do not have to be caused to begin to exist (Uncaused Existence) or things did not always exist and consequently, have to be caused to begin to exist (Caused Existence).2) However, it is not possible for ALL things to have to begin to exist because then the first thing that had to begin to exist could not exist since prior to the first thing beginning to exist, there was only nonexistence and from nonexistence you can only have non-existence. Therefore, there has to be at least one thing that exists, which always existed, to start off existence which needed to begin to exist. In other words, at least one uncaused existence, which always existed, is necessary as the cause of existence which did not always exist and had to begin to exist (caused existence).3) Now , because an uncaused existence does not have a cause to make it begin to exist, it has no beginning of its existence. This is only possible if it always existed and if it always existed, it can not be dependent on anything else for its existence. It must exist through itself alone.4) Since the existence of an Uncaused existence is Independent of anything else, it’s existence can not be limited or restricted by anything else. To elaborate further, uncaused existence has no cause that can cause its existence to be restricted to begin at particular time or cause it to be restricted to a particular space at any given time or cause it to be restricted to one way of existing instead of another way of existing ( e.g. existing as a proton instead of an electron). It must be completely unrestricted.5)Based on how the uncaused reality has been explained, the following can bededuced:There can be only one uncaused existence because another one would have to be different in some way from the first one to not be the self same reality as the first one but another one could only be different if it had some limitations or restrictions in its way of existing that the first one did not have. In other words, if there is a difference between them, then one of them would have to have something or be something or be somewhere that the other one is not and the one that does not have is limited or restricted by what it does not have which the other one does have. Therefore, another one could not be an uncaused reality because an uncaused reality has no limitations or restrictions in its way of existing.6)Since all of existence must be either caused or uncaused and we have established that there can be only ONE uncaused existence then it follows that the rest of existence must be caused existence and requires a cause to exist and the only thing that can cause it to exist is the one uncaused existence which is the one uncaused cause. In other words, the Uncaused Cause is the Creator of all that is.Furthermore, since caused existence includes the super intelligent, physical universe that we have today which operates according to laws of nature which can only be described and explained by using extremely intelligent mathematical formulas and equations of physics and chemistry and also has super intelligent DNA and self-replicating of life processes, that intelligence could only have come from the one uncaused existence that caused the universe to exist.Regarding the intelligence behind the laws of nature in the universe, Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicist in history, made the following comment:“The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.The following excerpt from a EveryStudent.com - a safe place to explore questions about life and God. article called "Is God Real?- See Why DNA Convinced Former Atheist Dr. Antony Flew" illustrates the incredible intelligence behind DNA processing:"British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, was a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature”. Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA. Here's why.DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. These letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night.The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. Yet, inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. This code identifies you and continually instructs your cells'Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?The DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.How can one explain this sophisticated messaging, coding, residing in our cells?On June 26, 2000, President Clinton congratulated those who completed the human genome sequencing. President Clinton said, "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift." Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."When looking at the DNA structure within the human body, we cannot escape the presence of intelligent (incredibly intelligent) design".To further substantiate the intelligence behind DNA processing, consider that even Richard Dawkins, a famous ATHEIST biologist, described the cell as a kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles software code.At this point, let us examine an extremely simplified, general statement on how life evolved on earth demonstrating the supreme intelligence behind the process:Life on earth started with one cell organisms that replicated asexually. In time, based on the mechanism we call evolution through natural selection, the one celled organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms that replicated through sexual reproduction, the highest form today being human beings. One human male sperm fertilizes and merges with one female egg cell to form a zygote. The zygote cell replicates itself into many stem cells each of which contains the DNA properties for every part of the human body. In the growing embryo, each stem cell decides which part or system of the body it will form, activates the mechanism to only create that part and at the same time blocks the mechanism to create any of the other parts of the body. These now body specific cells keep replicating until their specific body part is formed in the embryo. Somehow the cells know not to create the same body parts which are being created by other cells. For example, 2 arms are created instead of several arms, 2 legs instead of several legs, one brain, one heart, one nervous system instead of several and so on until a complete, perfect (the majority of the time) human being is created.Science can not tell us what caused the four fundamental forces that existed at the beginning of the universe but science can tell us that these forces - gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces - are physical, unthinking forces with no mind or intelligence of their own. Gravity is a force that pulls together matter , Electromagnetism is the interaction of electric and magnetic fields, the Strong Nuclear Force is an attractive force between protons and neutrons that keep the nucleus together and the Weak Nuclear Force causes the radioactive decay of certain nuclei. Therefore, since these four physical forces have no thinking capacity but are limited to only their own specific function and are 4 and not 1, they can not be the one, uncaused cause which caused the extremely intelligent, ordered universe and intelligent life forms. Consequently, they must be only part of caused reality which the uncaused cause with infinite intellectual and creative power caused to exist and change into the intelligent universe with the stars and planets and intelligent life that exist today.The next obvious question for us is why did this one uncaused reality cause intelligent human life to exist. To attempt at getting an answer, let us examine the nature of human life:Human life is able to continue from generation to generation through a relationship of love - 2 people ( a man and a woman) fall in love with each other and out of that love comes a third person (a child) or children and the 3rd person or persons return the love and complete the love of the Father and Mother. From this experience. we realize that true love always goes beyond itself and needs to be shared and it must be freely given. It can never be forced.Now, Jesus Christ tells us In the New Testament of the Bible ( as interpreted by the Catholic Church ) that the nature of God is a relationship of love between 3 persons in the one God. The use of the word person in this context is not the same as human person where one person equals one being. Instead, 3 persons in the one being of God (as per Fr Spitzer in his youtube on the Trinity) means 3 self consciousnesses or independent, subjective domains in the one nature or being of God. Fr Spitzer goes on to say that Jesus told us that these 3 self consciousnesses or persons in God are in love. The first person, the Father, loves the 2nd person , the Son, who receives the love of the Father and give it back to him. This unity of love between the Father and Son goes outside itself (because love always goes beyond itself to be completed) to a 3rd Person, the Holy Spirit. Then, the Holy Spirit receives the love of the Father and the Son and gives love back to them which completes their love. Now, doesn’t this explanation of the nature of God (or the uncaused reality) seem to be the perfect model for the finite human nature that the uncaused reality caused to exist.If you find it reasonable to believe that the uncaused reality (hereafter called God) caused human life to exist as a finite version of His own infinite nature, then the answer to why God created us is love. He wanted to share his love with us and gave us free will to love Him back since we know true love can only be freely given.Now, since God is perfect love, then the belief that the 2nd person in God, the Son, added a human nature to his divine person with the name of Jesus to reveal to us how we should show our love for God and each other is reasonable to believe. Also, the fact that His human nature died and resurrected for us as the perfect act of love to save us from our sins is also reasonable to believe.There are many reasons to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:1) In the New Testament of the Bible written 2,000 years ago, Jesus, in response to the Pharisees’ question “Who do you think you are?” said, “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.’ ‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ the Jews said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’ ‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (John 8:56–59). The violent response of the Jews to Jesus’ “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring—that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in the Old Testament of the Bible book of Exodus 3:14 which was written 4, O00 years ago.If Jesus had merely wanted to say He existed before Abraham’s time, He would have said, “Before Abraham, I was.” The Greek words translated “was,” in the case of Abraham, and “am,” in the case of Jesus, are quite different. The words chosen by Jesus make it clear that Abraham was “brought into being,” but Jesus existed eternally (see John 1:1). There is no doubt that the Jews understood what He was saying because they took up stones to kill Him for making Himself equal with God (John 5:18).By God calling Himself I AM in both the Old and New Testament, He is saying ( what we deduced in steps 1- 4 above) that He is the uncaused cause Being itself who always existed and from whom all other being comes to be or in other words, He is the Creator of all that is.2) Historical evidence can be made for God in the person of Jesus Christ. The New Testament of the bible tells us that St Peter, the head of the apostles of Jesus, along with the other 10 apostles and over 500 disciples of Christ saw and interacted with the Resurrected Christ after His death and burial. All of the apostles of Jesus except for John suffered persecution and martyrdom for preaching about the risen Jesus as God. St Peter specifically was crucified in Rome by Emperor Nero in AD 64. His martyrdom and burial in Rome was so well accepted as fact that 250 years later Emperor Constantine of the Roman empire had the basilica of St Peter built on the site of St Peter's tomb in Rome. Then, in the 1950s, archaeological excavations under the high altar of St Peter's basilica found what was apparently the remains of St Peter because an inscription identifying the place as St Peter's site was found in the vicinity of his tomb. Obviously, St Peter would not have sacrificed his life preaching about the risen Christ as God if he did not in fact see and encounter the resurrected Christ. The same is true for the other martyred apostles.3) In the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament, it is written that the apostles of Jesus performed many miraculous healings of the sick ( as Jesus had done in his 3 year ministry) in the name of Jesus during their preaching. We can believe this to be true because how else could the apostles convince people that a crucified man was their Lord and Savior and convert so many people to Christianity in such a short period of time.4) In his 3 year ministry, Jesus forgave sins and performed many miraculous healings of the sick by his own authority and command. However, he only very gradually and covertly revealed his identity as the Son of God, the 2nd person of the one, Triune God, because He did not want to be executed for blasphemy by the Jewish people until his ministry was over. The miracles of Jesus - changing water to wine, walking on water, calming the wind and seas and healing all types of diseases and infirmities etc. - could only be performed by God. Therefore, if Jesus was not God, then the real God would never have done these miracles for Jesus knowing that Jesus was pretending to be God and the miracles would eventually result in billions of people ( Christians) worshiping Jesus as God.5) Some people say if God really did exist, then why wouldn't He announce His existence to us in such a dramatic way that we could not deny His existence. The answer is that God would never do that because it would undermine our free will and free choice to love Him and love others. instead, we would obey God and pretend to love Him and others for selfish reasons, out of fear of being punished by God for not following His will for us. God wants us to truly love Him and others from our hearts not out of fear of punishment. He wants us to grow in true love by the choices we make to go from being self centered to other centered because we can not be with God in heaven unless we have true love of Him and those that He loves which is all people since the nature of God is Love.6) The charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, in which priests pray over people asking Jesus to heal them of illnesses is an example of the divinity of Jesus. There are many charismatic priests in modern times that are able to cause immediate healing by praying over people in the name of Jesus. Skeptics may say that it is due to the mind- body connection ( the placebo effect or spontaneous remission etc.). In some cases, it may be that because God created us with a mind which He wants us to use for our good and the good of others. However, in many cases it is through the intervention of Jesus using the priest praying over us that we are healed. One example of this is when Fr. Edward McDonough, a priest famous for his healing ministry in modern times, prayed in the name of Jesus over an 11 year old boy, Jerry Taylor, who had been in a coma for over a month with only a life support systemo keeping him breathing because all brain activity had stopped. Within 20 minutes, Jerry regained consciousnesses and opened his eyes. From that day on, he progressed back to health. This incident was reported in the reputable Boston Globe newspaper on February 16, 2008. Since Jerry was brain dead, his almost immediateregaining of consciousnesses could not be due to the placebo effect but instead through the intervention of Jesus.7) Regarding scientific evidence that Jesus is divine, there is his burial cloth which is called the Shroud of Turin named after the town where it is kept. There are reasons to believe that the transfigured, glorified body of Jesus passed through this cloth to the outside world and He left his unexplainable image on this cloth as scientific proof that his body resurrected from the dead. The following excerpt from the article, Science and the Shroud of Turin, by Robert Spitzer, S.J., PH. D. May 2015 on his Magis Center: Catholic Answers to Science, Faith and Reason website contains some of the details:"The Shroud of Turin is a burial shroud" that " apparently covered a man who suffered the wounds of crucifixion in a way very similar to Jesus of Nazareth" based on " the positions of the blood stains in relation to the image of the body. The Shroud has undergone considerably more scientific testing than any other relic in human history. The 1978 STURP investigation and subsequent investigations were remarkably thorough, and with the exception of the questionable 1988 carbon dating (fibers extracted from the shroud ( for this test) could have come from threads or cloth used to mend it after the fire of Chambery in 1532) , all the evidence points to its being the burial cloth of Jesus.- Four contemporary dating tests: the vanillin dating test of Dr Raymond Rogers, theTwo spectroscopic analyses and the compressibility and breaking strength tests of Dr Giulio Fantis, et. all date the Shroud to a time commensurate with the life and crucifixion of Jesus- Three kinds of extrinsic dating evidence: Testing of pollen samples by Dr Max Frei, roman coins on the eyes of the image on the Shroud, and 120 coincidences of blood and fluid stains between the Shroud and the Sudarium (Jesus Burial Facecloth of Oviedo) give evidence of a date and location of the Shroud's origin similar to that of Jesus.- The blood stains on the Shroud: The blood stains tell a story very similar to the highly unusual crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth- they were imprinted on the Shroud before the image was made ( the opposite of what would need to be done by a forger).- Formation of the images on the Shroud: The image was not formed by dyes, chemicals, vapors or scorching. The only known explanation for the formation of the image is an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation (equivalent to the output of 14,000 excimer lasers) emitted from every three- dimensional point of the body in the Shroud.The combination of the above evidence is exceedingly difficult to explain in any way other than the burial cloth being that of Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, the formation of the image by an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation is suggestive of a resurrection event similar to that described in the Gospels".If you go to the Magis Center: Catholic Answers to Science, Faith and Reason website, select Science, Reason and Faith and scroll down to "Contemporary Scientifically Validated Miracles", you can view a 25 page paper on contemporary scientifically validated miracles.8) The following is paraphrased from the article - 70, 000 years ago - the Origin of the Soul - by Fr Robert Spitzer Sept 2016 on his Magis Center: Catholic Answers to Science, Faith and Reason website. Another indication of the existence of God is the transphysical soul leaving the physical body of a person who undergoes clinical death (flat EEG, fixed and dilated pupils, and absence of gag reflux) during a Near Death Experience. A peer reviewed medical study of Dr Kenneth Ring on the near death experiences of the blind in 1999 found that approximately 80 percent of blind people- most of whom were blind from birth- could see and report verifiable data occurring during the time of their clinical death. If there is no transphysical soul capable of seeing, then these reported phenomena are inexplicable. Why? Because the patients in question (blind from birth) were not able to see in their physical bodies either before or after their near death experience - only during the time of it. This lends considerable objective credibility to Near Death Experiences as a transphysical phenomenon occurring within a transphysical substance - i.e. a soul.A good resource for more information on this subject and related topics is Fr Spitzer's new website, Does God exist? - Credible Catholic under the link, 7 Essential Modules.9) People sometimes question why an all loving God does not alleviate suffering or even why he allows suffering in the first place. There is an extremely insightful book which tries to answer these questions. It is called "The Light Shines on in the Darkness - Transforming Suffering Through Faith" by Fr Robert Spitzer. I will quote and paraphase below sections from that book ( pgs. 137-138, 143, 485-488) to provide some answers.God " has six objectives (in dealing with humanity) , four of which are primary and equally important. The other two are secondary and equally important on that plane. God's primary objectives are our salvation, others' salvation, the maintenance of our freedom (free will), and the maintenance of others' freedom. His secondary objectives are the alleviation of our suffering and the suffering of others' suffering. We might frame these six objectives and two priorities in a general concept - God will alleviate our and others' suffering in a way that will optimize salvation for all of us, without undermining our or other's freedom. The reverse is also compatible with Christian revelation - God will not alleviate our or others' suffering if it leads away from our or others' salvation or undermines our or others' freedom. So, for example, God will not perform a miracle if it undermines our or others' freedom or leads away from our or other' salvation (page 137). The miracle might not be good for us, that the challenges we or others face might actually help us to grow in empathy, compassion, higher purpose, humility and courage - all of which might help us and others on the path to salvation" Also, " if God gives everyone a miracle, He would likely have to mitigate the whole domain of natural laws and forces. As a result, we would have no idea about what to expect from one moment to the next - after all, somebody next door could pray for a miracle and "poof" the laws of nature are suspended again - and again-and again. Consider that if we live in such a world, we would never be able to predict the future, in which case we could not anticipate the consequences of our actions. As a result, we would not be able to make free rational choices. This would render meaningless our plans to do good, to avoid evil and to be compassionate and contributive. Why even bother to get together with others for the sake of making the community or world a better place? All we would need to do is pray fora miracle - and "poof! - all done! Evidently, this could undermine our freedom, creativity, collective efforts and, yes, our path to salvation. Thus, when God alleviates our suffering, He finds a way to optimize salvation for all of us while maintaining our and other's freedom in doing so. He must also be conscious of how the alleviation of our personal suffering will affect the alleviation of others' suffering, and then He must optimize this sixfold objective not only in the present, but into the future, even the distant future. Orchestrating these six objectives (and two priorities) for the entire interconnected and interdependent human community is only within the capacity of a Being with unrestricted intelligence, power, and compassion. Thus. God's plan to alleviate suffering is completely beyond our capacity to understand"."So why does an all-loving God allow suffering?( My comments regarding human beings given the free will to choose good or evil and choosing evil which causes suffering to ourselves and others: From our human experience, we know that true love must be freely given; it can never be forced. You can use force to get someone to act and appear on the surface that they love you but in their heart they do not have to love you. Therefore, it was necessary for God to give us free will so that we could freely choose to love Him and those He loves which is everyone or choose instead to be self- centered, self-absorbed, self-worshipping and egocentric which allows us to cause suffering to others)."The answer may be found in the interrelationship among four ideas- freedom, love, eternal salvation, and personal identity. In Section I, we considered God's dilemma in creating beings truly capable of love, noting that God had to create us with the potential (freedom or free will) to cause suffering, for if He did not, we would not have the capacity to choose evil, injustice and unloving behaviors, in which case we would have no choice but to do good, just and loving behaviors. if we had no choice, then we would have been compelled or programmed to do these positive behaviors. They would not have originated from within us, but from a preset program, and hence we would not be loving creatures, but only robots programmed to perform loving behaviors. If God wanted to create genuinely loving beings, He had to create the potential for evil and suffering caused by those beings.In Section Ii, we considered why God would have created us in an imperfect world, so that the blind forces of nature could cause famine, disease, genetic defects, floods, and other natural disasters, producing all manner of pain, suffering and deprivation. It was here that the idea of "personal identity" became important - for when we are confronted by the forces of the imperfect world, we have to make choices that will determine not only who we are, but the kind of eternity that we would prefer. The impending reality of death in the imperfect world incites us to choose the way we are going to live in the short time we have in the physical world: Are we going to accumulate things for ourselves, aggrandize ourselves, gain ego- comparative advantage for ourselves, dominate others for the sake of our personal benefit, and worship ourselves, or will we use our gifts and resources to help others, edify others, contribute to others, respect others, show compassion to others and worship the true God? Without death, these fundamental choices and identity decisions could be interminably delayed, allowing us to avoid the critical decisions constituting our personal and eternal identity.In Section Ii A, we noted how the imperfect world provides the impetus for natural virtue, particularly courage and self-discipline. Without an imperfect world, there would be no need for courage to face our fears, because the perfect world would present no fear; there would be no need to sacrifice ourselves to make the world a better place; there would be no need to exert effort and restrain the pursuit of pleasure, because everything would be effortless and there would be no worthier pursuit than the mere pursuit of pleasure. Without an imperfect world, life would be pleasant, painless and simple but we would have no opportunity to make a contribution, a positive difference, to anybody or anything". (My comments: It would be very difficult in a perfect world to grow in love for God and humanity, to grow from the self being our main concern to the love of God and humanity being our main concern).I Section II B, we saw how from the imperfect world, personal and bodily weaknessand limitations can lead to humility, empathy and compassion and how the need of others can call us to make contributions, show compassion and build systems, structures and cultures for the common good. We also saw how the imperfect world can shock us out of superficial Level 0ne and Level Two purpose in life, (As per Fr Spitzer video, Level One is the narcisistic person who is self-obsessed and self- absorbed only caring about himself and no one else. Meanwhile. Level 2 is the ego comparitive person who always has to be better than the other person, always win and have more material goods than the other person. Both level 1 and level 2 people can not be happy for long because they suffer from emptiness due to the pain of envy, hate, loneliness and ego-sensitivity). An impefect world shocks us out of this by telling us we are not God and help us acknowledge our need for God. Additionally, we saw how the sufferings of the imperfect world would provide the conditions for making a self- sacrificial offering to God for the salvation of souls (my comments - which would be an act of true love).The imperfect world and human evil can and do incite us to the highest levels of love,individual spirit, collective spirit and human endeavor and this can make an important contribution not only to our own salvation but also to the salvation of others.Throughout this book, we have seen how in the context of Christian faith, personal suffering can lead to freedom from self-centeredness, and how the suffering of others could call us to sacrifice ourselves for them. Suffering can call us to greater trust in God and when He responds, to a greater awareness of His love for us. The more we are aware of His love, the more we love Him in return - desiring to serve Him in the needy, the suffering, the physically deprived, the Church and the culture".10) The words Catholic Church instead of Christian Church is used in the subject of this paper because the Catholic Church was the one founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the gospel of Mathew chapter 16 verses 18 - 19, Jesus said to Simon Peter (Peter) " And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven". In the gospel of John chapter 14 verse 26, Jesus (addressing the apostles) says “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name- he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you”. Then, again In the gospel of John chapter 20 verses 22 - 23 Jesus (addressing the apostles) "breathed on them and said to them "Receive the Holy Spirit". Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained". The Catholic Church was the only Christian church for 1500 years after Christ. The Protestant Reformation did not start until 1517 AD and continued to grow from that time to the many Christian denominations that exist today. The reformation started in protest to some corruption in the church in the Middle Ages. Although the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith, it is still run by human beings who have free will and sometimes human beings choose what is wrong instead of what is right. However, this does not invalidate the fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and does not justify the formation of many Christians denominations with their own distinct interpretations of the teachings of Jesus.For much more detailed evidence supporting the existence of God and how He revealed Himself to us through the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, go to a website by Fr Robert Spitzer called “Does God exist? - Credible Catholic”, select “Modules” and then select “Big Book”.

NO. There is no such consensus that humans are causing global warming. Skepticism about the claim of non-toxic, trace amounts of CO2 are suddenly having a climate impact is debunked often. The most recent example is the petition of 90 leading Italian scientists urging governments to stop attacking fossil fuels because there is no climate crisis.The scientists found -The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1.Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.9.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…718 views · View UpvotersThe alleged 97% consensus claim is bunk and in any event science is not about consensus. Doubt is the life blood of science and skepticism is what matters most.“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert EinsteinI offer in this post major studies published in NATURE and other leading science journals that disprove the hypothesis of human caused global warming from CO2.But first I hope you will read this article exposing the nonsense of the alleged meme about the so called 97% consensus.Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' ClaimsJames TaylorFormer ContributorGlobal warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”Today In: OpinionAs is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.A Bipartisan Marriage StoryInvestigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' ClaimsNEW RESEARCH shows Co2 is not the driver of climate change.Published: 25 September 2019Low CO2 levels of the entire Pleistocene epochJiawei Da,Yi Ge Zhang,Gen Li,Xianqiang Meng &Junfeng JiNature Communications volume 10, Article number: 4342 (2019) | Download CitationAbstractQuantifying ancient atmospheric pCO2 provides valuable insights into the interplay between greenhouse gases and global climate. Beyond the 800-ky history uncovered by ice cores, discrepancies in both the trend and magnitude of pCO2 changes remain among different proxy-derived results. The traditional paleosol pCO2 paleobarometer suffers from largely unconstrained soil-respired CO2 concentration (S(z)). Using finely disseminated carbonates precipitated in paleosols from the Chinese Loess Plateau, here we identified that their S(z) can be quantitatively constrained by soil magnetic susceptibility. Based on this approach, we reconstructed pCO2 during 2.6–0.9 Ma, which documents overall low pCO2 levels (<300 ppm) comparable with ice core records, indicating that the Earth system has operated under late Pleistocene pCO2 levels for an extended period.https://www.nature.com/articles/...Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. I will summarize leading science paper that do not support the deniers of natural variability from CHINA, FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES.First China scientists with new research with the longest instrumental temperature record thus far.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.MY PUBLISHED COMMENTJames Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...In fact there was a serious divide between the IPCC scientists and the UN on the science of human caused climate change. The UN political arm took over in 1995 and ignored the doubts about human caused warming of the working group scientists.THE UN IPCC IS CAUGHT OFF GUARDThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC – is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world.Yet the surprising story of how it came to prominence is little known. Its origins can be traced back to earlier panics over the effects of supersonic transportation and ozone layer depletion, which taught political elites that science-based scares could be powerful drivers of policy action. It was as an authority fit to deliver the required evidence on climate change that the IPCC came into being.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise.Ref. The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change eBook: Bernie Lewin: Amazon.ca: Kindle StoreUN CONSIDERED DISMISSING THE IPCC SCIENCE BODY!Did you know the UN almost dismissed the IPCC because their working scientists from around the world did not find human caused global warming after extensive research in 1990? After 5 years of research and discussion those 2000 best scientist concluded as follows -In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The story of the failure of the IPCC science to support the UN General Assembly is reported in detail by Bernie Lewin in the above recent book.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise. (less)The IPCC drama is played out as Lewin recites the struggle for power between the policy side headed by the G77 underdeveloped countries and the science side with thousands researching in Working Group 1. The G77 wanted to march forward quickly and get the climate reparations from the rich nations like the US and Germany. They became very impatient with the scientists who had serious doubts about the thesis that fossil fuels were sinking the developed nation coasts and it was all the fault of industrialization and market capitalism.Therefore the IPCC science summary detecting no human signal was terrible news for larger group. Worse are the clarifying reasons for no human signal of the IPCC because they looked unresolvable, certainly no hope for many years of ‘’observable data.’The ‘shortcomings and uncertainties’ found by IPCC working group are key to the reason the group refused to find the ‘science settled’ as th. See-11.1 IntroductionIn order to deal with the issues posed by increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and to prepare human societies for the impacts of climate change, climate predictions must become more reliable and precisePresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demandsinternational coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system wc must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from Incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.The UN ignored these shortcomings and uncertainties identified by the scientists and went ahead as though the opposite finding had been made.In fact we now know that after that meeting in Madrid Santer had traveled directly to the UK Met office in Bracknell. Following the vague and disputed direction of the Madrid letter, and under Houghton’s direction, he had proceeded to modify the Chapter so that it would not directly contradict the bottom line finding that the evidence points towards human attribution. He had paid special attention to the many statements arising from the skeptical Barnett paper, which had reported the lack of any ‘yardstick’ of natural variability against which the human influence could be measured. The chapter’s Concluding Summary had been entirely removed.IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary’. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”AMAZING VOLTE FACEThis manipulation of climate science for a political purpose is outrageous. It is the shoddiest of science. It is like finding that Chicken Little was right the falling acorn did prove the sky was falling. Why such bad science?I submit the answer is explained by the fact THE UN HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH AND the end justified the unethical means.Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate changeMartin Hertzberg, Hans SchreuderFirst Published October 21, 2016 Research ArticleHans Schreuderttps://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X16674637Article informationAbstractThe authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.KeywordsIPCC paradigm, atmospheric CO2, human emission, atmospheric temperatures, ice core data, satellite data“This study examines the various definitions of the greenhouse effect for compatibility with the laws of physics.Definition 1A greenhouse is a glass/plastic enclosure, warmed by sunlight, facilitating plant growth. Several definitions argue that the effect in the atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse. It is stated that sunlight transmitted into an enclosure through transparent glass warms the interior of the enclosure, increasing the Infra Red (IR) radiation. As glass is partly opaque to IR radiation, it cannot freely pass outward through the glass and is thus retained within the enclosure. Several definitions infer the radiation is being ‘trapped’ and it is argued that atmospheric gases such as CO2 are analogous to the glass pane action of a greenhouse and this serves to ‘trap’ IR radiation within the atmosphere and obstruct radiative cooling.The CritiqueAn early test of the ‘trapped’ radiation theory was conducted by R. W. Wood. He constructed two enclosures, one covered with a glass plate and the other covered with an IR transmitting rock salt plate. When adjusted so that both were exposed to the same solar input radiation, they both reached the same temperature of 55°C with ‘scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures’. His experiment clearly showed that it was the presence of the enclosure itself that enabled the warming. Therefore, it is the heat generated by absorbed sunlight that becomes ‘trapped’. In the absence of an enclosure, the warmed air near the ground would rise by buoyancy and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings thus cooling it. This natural convective cooling process is restricted and suppressed by the enclosure. It is the same process that generates a cooling afternoon sea breeze on a beach with cooler air from the ocean replacing rising warmer air over land. To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous compon Respected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct On ‘Hoax’ Global WarmingPublished onFebruary 9, 2017Written by Dr Martin HertzbergRespected former American government scientist and life-long Democrat explains why Donald Trump is correct in calling man-made global warming a “hoax.”The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a great number of establishment groupthinkers tell us carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming and that this is ‘established science’ – it is not.Dr Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry writes:Shocking isn’t it? You might ask, how can a lifelong Democrat like myself reject my party’s position on global warming and join the camp of the skeptics, virtually all of whom are Republicans or http://neocons.So, I’ll tell you how it all started for me. My involvement in this issue of global warming started in 1986 at a NATO-sponsored meeting on coal combustion that was held in the French Alps. A colleague from MIT, actually solicited my opinion on the subject of global warming.Now, just being asked for an opinion by someone from MIT is a great honor. I had given a paper at a Combustion Symposium at MIT in which I had used the infrared emissions from CO2 to measure explosion temperatures, so I was familiar with its spectrum, and he knew that I had once been a meteorologist, so he solicited my opinion.Shortly thereafter, a colleague from New Zealand, who had worked in our lab while on his sabbatical, wrote to me about the subject, and we proceeded to collaborate on a study of the problem. We confined our attention to item 3 of the Gore-IPCC argument which dealt with the infrared absorption of atmospheric CO2 and the atmospheric heating that would result.ents of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.“ In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane!”Respected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct on 'Hoax' Global Warming | PSI Intl”“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.”A brilliant Danish scientist PROF HENRIK SVENSMARK explained this reality as follows:“Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”Anthony Watts / September 10, 2009UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – AnthonyWhile the sun sleepsTranslation approved by Henrik SvensmarkWhile the Sun sleepsHenrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, CopenhagenThe star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger."The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. [EMPHASIS ADDED]When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.Correlation between variations in cosmic ray flux (red) and change in sea temperature (black).Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.SUNSPOTS DECLINE AS SOLAR RADIATION DECLINESThe outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)https://principia-scientific.org...”GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPER“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)’PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board“Trace amounts of Co2 plant food in Green House Gases have a negligible effect on the climate.”Canadian scientist Tim Ball demolishes greenhouse gas effect.“Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasWRITTEN BY: DR. TIM BALL SEPTEMBER 13, 2018“Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe ReloadedThe CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN EditorThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said,“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results.a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.Figure 1In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Novaexplains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe Reloaded”UGLY FACTSThomas Huxley said,“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing.“NO WARMING CENTRAL ASIA 1580 – 2012“THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING”Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Co2 Emissions!NO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of the http://data.No weather by itself is evidence of global warming/ climate change as the test is whether the weather adds to a new weather pattern over many years even millennia.Monday, 01 October 2018“NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun ActivityWritten by James MurphyThe climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get.“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate?There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere increases a satellite’s lifetime.But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.”Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low.“Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle."SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak.In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.”The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate. God — and that big yellow ball of light in the sky — have much more impact on our climate than we ever could.James Matkin • 6 months agoThe earth is actually cooling and NASA grudgingly begins to admit reality over the fiction of failed computer modelling by the iPCC. So much waste and damage from the futile attempt to reduce our Co2 emissions for a colder climate. The climate alarmists have ignored solar natural variability not because of the science but because of their left wing economic agenda. They have ignored leading science papers like the 400 page study THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by Professor Fritz Vahreholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. This study demonstrates that "the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity." As NASA admits the sun is in a cooling phase and the solar cycles make impossible "the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics."https://www.thenewamerican.com/t...”“Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global CoolingInconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five-month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy? In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverageOther ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)Figure 2The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).Figure 3The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.Leading German research concludes anthropogenic global warming AGW from fossil fuels as nothing more than “meritless conjectures.””3. The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger (1533)One of the most famous paintings of the Renaissance, The Ambassadors was actually painted in England. Born in Augsburg, Holbein was German, but also one of the painters that revolutionized art in Britain, bringing the country up to compete with the rest of Europe. W.—“Greenhouse Effect Based On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation.They conclude that this “though experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.Gerhard KrammScrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.”“This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONRandy A. Stadt“With Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.”The Last Word - Who is responsible for global warming?Finally, we arrive at our most recent cold and warm periods. I.e. “the Little Ice Age” (~1300–1850) and then our “Modern Warm Period” (1850 until the present). Human influences were essentially negligible during the Little Ice Age and at the beginning of the Modern Warm Period (i.e. around 1850) our emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) were in the range of <<0.5 Gt/year as compared to natural emissions/absorption of roughly 800 Gt/year +/-100 Gt/year from plants, the oceans and volcanoes. If you believe that one part in one thousand (0.1%) of the natural flux of carbon dioxide is enough to change the temperature of the planet, I have some desert to sell you on Mars!!Ref. Ian Wylie, http://M.Sc Chemistry & Physics, Carleton University (1984) QUORA.James Matkin