Cover Letter: Fill & Download for Free

Far less than the potential alternative of global cooling. Fear of global warming is bad science according to extensive research of the earth’s warming history. Temperatures are declining now for thousands of years after the glaciation of 18,000 years ago and we should do nothing to reduce warming. Because of natural variability and albedo feedback there is no danger of runaway global warming. There is real danger of a return to frigid conditions of the last Little Ice Age.Abundant evidence of robust growth during long past global warming.ANALYSISThe earth is in the Holocene interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age and at the peak of warming.In depth analysis of data shows there is no evidence global warming / climate change over the necessary long time scale.Temperatures are in a 7000 year decline.We are sliding down in temperatures and will probably end up similar to the Little Ice age temperatures with massive flooding from record winter snowfall.Holocene warming has made civilization possible because the evidence is warm weather is always more beneficial than cold.We can expect falling into a cooling period like the Little Ice Age soon from the evidence of the decline of solar activity of Cycle 24-25.Further the greatest fear is the next cycle of glaciation not global warming as we are at the peak of the current interglacial.During the last glaciation most of the USA and Canada became inhospitable covered in ice > 1 mile thick.There is no evidence that Co2 including our emissions from fossil fuels has any effect on the climate.Solar cycles and activity correlates well with temperature not Co2.The sun has gone blank with few sunspots leading to the earth cooling.Most of earth’s history has been tropical with robust growth of plants and animals and not like the current ice age.Humans are a tropical specie and thrive in warmer weather.Fear of global warming is bad science and terrible public policy.REFERENCESHow Global Warming Made Civilization PossibleWhen Antarctica was a tropical paradiseGeological drilling under Antarctica suggests the polar region has seen global warming beforeRobin McKie Sat 16 Jul 2011 19.04 EDTAn impression of a tropical Antarctica as it may have appeared 100 million years ago. Image: Robert Nicholls/paleocreations.comAntarctica is the coldest, most desolate place on Earth, a land of barren mountains buried beneath a two-mile thick ice cap. Freezing winds batter its shores while week-long blizzards frequently sweep its glaciers.Yet this icy vision turns out to be exceptional. For most of the past 100 million years, the south pole was a tropical paradise, it transpires."It was a green beautiful place," said Prof Jane Francis, of Leeds University's School of Earth and Environment. "Lots of furry mammals including possums and beavers lived there. The weather was tropical. It is only in the recent geological past that it got so cold."Prof Francis was speaking last week at the International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences in Edinburgh. More than 500 polar researchers gathered to discuss the latest details of their studies, research that has disturbing implications for the planet's future. Drilling projects and satellite surveys show the whole world, not just Antarctica, was affected by temperature rises and that these were linked, closely, to fluctuations in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.WE ARE A TROPICAL SPECIETropical nations are expected to hold 50% of the world’s population by 2050, up from 40% now.©IEMBICKI/MARKZPHOTO.COMTropical nations are expected to hold 50% of the world’s population by 2050, up from 40% now.©IEMBICKI/MARKZPHOTO.COMExpanding tropics will play greater global role, report predictsBy Allie WilkinsonJun. 29, 2014 , 8:30 AMBy 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in the tropics—the relatively warm belt that girdles the globe—according to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today. Rapid population growth, coupled with economic growth, means that the region’s influence will grow in coming decades, the authors of the 500-page tome predict. At the same time, tropical conditions are expanding poleward as a result of climate change, but at a slower rate than previously believed.“The tropical population is expected to exceed that of the rest of the world in the late 2030s, confirming just how crucial the Tropics are to the world’s future,” said Sandra Harding, project convener and vice chancellor of Australia’s James Cook University, in a statement. “We must rethink the world’s priorities on aid, development, research and education.”The result of a 3-year collaboration between 12 prominent tropical research institutions, State of the Tropics grew out of an effort to acknowledge the region as an environmental and geopolitical entity in its own right. Geographers define the tropics as the belt that is centered on Earth’s equator, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn (each 23.5° of latitude off the equator). Although tropical regions vary considerably, they are “typically warm and experience little seasonal change in daily temperatures.” These geographic and environmental commonalities play a key part of shaping human societies in the region, which is currently home to about 40% of the world’s population, the authors add.“Fact 1: We are in an ice age, the Quaternary to name it, and have been for 2.58 million years. Given that the previous four ice ages lasted for right at 30 my, we likely have more than 27 my to go (the two ice ages that kicked things off were of snowball-Earth proportions and lasted much longer. Ice ages occur every 155 my, and we don’t know why. That’s a much longer cycle than Milankovitch cycles can account for. Those tell us things like why North Africa has been a desert for 5 ky when before that it was a populated savanna.“Fact 2: We are in an interglacial, the Holocene epoch to give it its name, a respite from glaciation. During an ice age, interglacials occur at 90 to 125 ky intervals and last approximately 7 to 14 ky. The Holocene is 11.7 ky old, but there is new evidence that the Allerød oscillation 13.9 ky ago was the actual start with a meteor strike 1 ky in producing the Younger Dryas cooling.* If we are actually, 13.9 ky into our interglacial, then natural cycles tell us we will be rapidly descending back into glaciation in 5… 4… 3…[Charles Tips QUORA writer and former Science Editor organized these facts.]“The combination of glacials and interglacials looks like this:THE sun continues to be very quiet and it has been without sunspots this year 62% of the time as we approach what is likely to be one of the deepest solar minimums in a long, long time.Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1977 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis CenterNew research shows fear of global warming is bad science.Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).(Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).Image Source: Wunsch, 2018In the near-surface layer of the ocean (0-20 m), temperatures rose more than 5 times faster from 1900 to 1945 (~1.2°C, 0.27°C/decade) than they did during 1945 to 2010 (~0.3°C, 0.046°C/decade), which is the opposite of what would be expected if CO2 emissions were driving thermal changes in the ocean (Gouretski et al., 2012).Image Source: Gouretski et al., 2012II. The astounding warmth of the distant past – when marine species thrivedA year ago, Henkes et al. (2018) determined marine animals “thrived” in water temperatures that averaged 35-40°C in “widespread regions of the oceans,” which is more than 20°C warmer than today’s average ocean surface temperature (~16°C).The authors note that today’s tropical temperatures (25-30°C) can be equated to the “icehouse” conditions of the Carboniferous.Further, when marine animals thrived in waters >20°C warmer than today, this warmth was accompanied by CO2 levels “5-10x higher than present-day values” – about 2000 to 4000 ppm.Image Source: Henkes et al., 2018In a new paper published in Science, Voosen, 2019 uses the data compiled by Henkes et al. (2018) to further reiterate“Some 450 million years ago, ocean waters averaged 35°C to 40°C, more than 20°C warmer than today. Yet marine life thrived, even diversified and to construct a graphical representation of global ocean temperatures from the Paleozoic onwards. Voosen affirms “marine life diversified in extreme heat” and “mammals evolved during a warm period.”Image Source: Voosen, 2019In sum, coupling the 1) insignificant thermal ocean changes during modern times and the 2) extreme warmth (and high CO2 levels) of the distant past would seem to support the contention that marine animals are not currently in any sort of obvious danger from either rapid warming or high CO2 levels.https://notrickszone.com/2019/07...NO, global warming has not happened and is not happening now.The evidence shows temperatures have hardly increased over the past 140 years at 0.8 ‘ C and are now falling at 0.4 ‘ C. This small increase is easily explained by solar activity and natural variability. Measuring global temperatures at this level of precision is not credible and it is certainly not cause for concern as climate always seesaws hot and cold everywhere so the range of statistical error must be very high.Figure 1: The world's surface air temperature change ("anomaly"), relative to the world's mean temperature of 58° F or 14.5° C, averaged over land and oceans from 1975 to 20082. Inset are two periods of no warming or cooling within this overall warming trend.Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate DataGuest Blogger / July 6, 2017Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.comGuest essay by Michael BastaschA new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered”.Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.Originally published at The Daily Caller, republished here under their content license.Just as important is when there was truly global warming in the past marine and other life thrived and this is when Co2 levels were 5 X HIGHER THAN TODYAY!We are in the Holocene interglacial warmer period of our Quaternary Ice Age of the past 2.5 million years. What is happening as to warming is no different and in fact cooler than temperatures of the Medieval Warm period where humans, plants and animals thrived.Holocene climatic optimum - WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's ClimateThis chart shows the seesaw hot and cold blips over 100 + years but ending where the temperature started and now returning to the colder temperatures from 1950 to 1980.Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial hereJennifer MarohasyJennifer Marohasy22 August 20177:49 AMAccording to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post.Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen, The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague.The greatest concern about the climate is the risk we are returning to the devastation of seesaw glaciation of the LITTLE ICE AGE. An abrupt return of falling temperatures is very concerning. 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 data or natural variability of climate.The earth is cooling not warming!It is not disputed that we are in an ice age from 2.5 million years ago so have temperatures changed upward enough that we break out into the nest global warming period?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ic...An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar icesheets and alpine glaciers. ... By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene.Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.Individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", "glacial stages", "stadials", "stades", or colloquially, "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials" or "interstadials" with both climatic pulses part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history.In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.The earth is cooling as temperatures declineLikely coldest April since 1895 – U.S. farmers delay planting cropsAnthony Watts / 1 day ago April 26, 2018Farmers are suffering as the cold, wet spring has put a stunning halt to agriculture. Ice Age Farmer Report – 19 Apr 2018Soil temperatures are below normal, and not conducive to planting yet.Ice Age Farmer highly recommends putting in your own greenhouse.“According to Mike Tannura of T-Storm Weather, there’s a strong correlation between historically cold April months and below trend yields. On Monday, Tannura told AgriTalk After The Bell host Chip Flory that April 2018 will go down as one of the three coldest Aprils since 1895.“Based on the data we’re looking at today, there’s a chance it could be the coldest of the entire period going back to 1895,” he said.Here are some of the Ice Age Farmer’s warnings:·Folks in Ohio are not able to start planting.·Folks in Nebraska are not able to start planting.·Folks in Illinois are not able to start planting.·Folks in North Dakota are not able to start planting.·Folks in South Dakota are not able to start planting.·None of Iowa’s farmland is ready for plantingClimate Scam Collapsing: ‘Reality Is Cooling…MORE Snowfall’Published on November 19, 2018Written by Tony HellerThe global warming scam is beginning to collapse. Even CBS News Boston is starting to understand.BOSTON (CBS) — Despite the snow blitz of 2015, many baby boomers still insist that, overall, we don’t get the harsh bitter cold and deep snowy winters like we did in the good ole days.Weather records prove that just isn’t the case and despite the ongoing claims that snows are becoming rare and hurting winter sports, this millennium has been a blessing to snow lovers and winter sports enthusiasts.The last decade stands out like a sore thumb! It has had 29 major impact northeast winter storms with NO previous 10-year period with more than 10 storms! In Boston, 7 out of the last 10 years have produced snowfall above the average 43.7 inches.2008-09: 65.9″2009-10: 35.7″2010-11: 81.0″2011-12: 9.3″2012-13: 63.4″2013-14: 58.9″2014-15: 110.6″ Greatest On Record Back To 18722015-16: 36.1″2016-17: 47.6″2017-18: 59.9″https://principia-scientific.org...Monday, 01 October 2018THE SUN DRIVES THE CLIMATE NOT MINUTE AMOUNTS NEAR ZERO OF HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2. SOLAR CYCLES MATTER MOST TO TEMPERATURE CHANGE.THE ABOVE CHART SHOWS VERY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN SOLAR CYCLES AND TEMPERATURE.This solar evidence destroys the unproven human made climate change idea.Recent in depth academic research supports the robustness of the 11 year solar cycle to explain natural variability not Co2.GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L14809, doi:10.1029/2011GL047964, 2011On the robustness of the solar cycle signal in the Pacific regionS. Bal,1,2 S. Schimanke,1,3 T. Spangehl,1 and U. Cubasch1Received 6 May 2011; revised 9 June 2011; accepted 10 June 2011; published 27 July 2011.[1] The potential role of the stratosphere for the 11‐year solar cycle signal in the Pacific region is investigated by idealized simulations using a coupled atmosphere‐ocean general circulation model. The model includes a detailed representation of the stratosphere and accounts for changes in stratospheric heating rates from prescribed time dependent variations of ozone and spectrally high resolved solar irradiance. Three transient simulations are performed spanning 21 solar cycles each. The simulations use slightly different ozone perturbations representing uncertainties of solar induced ozone variations. The model reproduces the main features of the 20th century observed solar response. A persistent mean sea level pressure response to solar forcing is found for the eastern North Pacific extending over North America. Moreover, there is evidence for a La Niña‐like response assigned to solar maximum conditions with below normal SSTs in the equatorial eastern Pacific, reduced equatorial precipitation, enhanced off‐equatorial precipita- tion and an El Niño‐like response a couple of years later, thus confirming the response to solar forcing at the surface seen in earlier studies. The amplitude of the solar signal in the Pacific region depends to a great extent on the choice of the centennial period averaged. Citation: Bal, S., S. Schimanke, T. Spangehl, and U. Cubasch (2011), On the robustness of the solar cycle signal in the Pacific region, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14809, doi:10.1029/2011GL047964.1. Introduction[2] It has been suggested that large scale near surface climate variability during the 20th century is related to the 11‐year cycle of the sun [White and Tourree, 2003]. The quasi decadal oscillation (QDO) reveals similar spatial characteristics as the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is similarly governed by a delayed action oscillator mechanism in the tropical Pacific [White and Tourree, 2003; White et al., 2003]. While ENSO associated with 3‐to 7‐year period variability is an internally generated mode of the coupled ocean‐atmosphere system, model studies indicate that solar forcing is necessary to generate the QDO of 9‐to 13‐year period [White and Liu, 2008a]. Moreover, there is evidence for a phase lock between QDO, ENSO type vari- ability and the 11‐year solar cycle resulting in a distinct temporal evolution of the solar signal [White and Liu, 2008a, 2008b]. Based on observations spanning the period from the late 19th century to present, van Loon et al. [2004, 2007] find1Institut fu ̈ r Meteorologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 2Department of Physics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. 3Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrköping,Sweden.Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. 0094‐8276/11/2011GL047964a La Niña like response with lower sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific mainly for solar maximum peak years. Meehl et al. [2008] confirmed a pro- posed mechanism on the basis of ensemble experiments with two different ocean‐atmosphere general circulation models (AO‐GCM). The resulting ensemble mean response patterns are similar to the observations in the Pacific region but the amplitude is only about half the magnitude of the observed response. A possible explanation for this underestimation is the neglect of stratospheric forcing and coupling mechanisms [e.g., Shindell et al., 2006].[3] Coupledchemistry‐climatemodels(CCM)havesofar been able to simulate important features of the stratospheric solar signal [e.g., Marsh et al., 2007]. In a recent study Meehl et al. [2009] successfully reproduce the strength of the observed response in the tropical Pacific region when employing a CCM coupled to a deep ocean model. However, their simulation reveals some discrepancies with respect to the exact shape and temporal evolution of the response. As their conclusions solely rely on a single realization with only one model, important aspects that need to be addressed are the role of (i) internal variability and (ii) ozone related sen- sitivities for the simulated/observed signals. In the present study we assess the associated uncertainties based on an ensemble of idealized simulations performed with a strato- sphere resolving AO‐GCM.The whole global warming saga is a group think movement using fear and prejudice to sell more newspapers and buy more votes. When you see the true non-science motives behind the radical claims of media and alarmists then you understand the fudged data and wrong hypothesis about the climate and how it really works.Dr. Endenhofer reveals the real climate agenda of the UN and other lefty alarmists.As to global warming Mother Nature has let the sun go to sleep resulting in cooling temperatures and weather that is reminiscent of the Little Ice Age.Monday, 01 October 2018NASA 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.MY PUBLISHED COMMENTJames Matkin •The 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...Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate changeby University of CopenhagenAn ice core from the deep drilling through the ice sheet at Law Dome in Antarctica.The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2is naturally higher. The gas CO2(carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2helps to intensify the natural climate variations.It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years."Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of CopenhagenCo2 has no effect on the climate as it follows rise in temperatures that is the result of solar cycles.No Empirical Evidence forCO2 Causing Global WarmingSome say historically, that increased CO2levels in the atmosphere have created periods of global warming throughout our history. They cite the Vostok, Antarctica ice core data (1) as proof of this seeFigure 1. However, the problem is that whoever came up with that analysis had thecause and effect reversed. If you look closely at the graph, it is obvious that global warming always comes first. At temperature (blue line) spike always comes before the CO2concentration (red line) spike. After a temperature spike from the sun, the oceans start to warm and eventually liberate more CO2 due to its reduced solubility in seawater at higher temperature. Another relevant question is, what other mechanism could possibly cause CO2 concentrations to increase other than a solar spike from the sun? Where else could the CO2come from, especially during those times before the industrial age?Figure 1. Vostok Antarctica Ice Core Data (420,000years Back from Present)Recent empirical data (2) show that atmospheric CO2concentrations have no discernible effect on global temperature, see Figure 2.The temperature plots shown are from two sources; the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration's (NASA) Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the United Kingdom's (UK) Hadley Climate Research Unit. The CO2 plot is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.Figure 2. Earth temperature and CO2concentration 1998-2008While CO2levels increased some 20 ppmv over the past 10 years, global temperatures did not increase as predicted by the IPCC models - they fell! The earth's temperature from 1998 to 2008 dropped by 0.65 - 0.78 o C depending on which temperature set is chosen.https://www.researchgate.net/pub...After record breaking temperatures, some cooler weather hits parts of EuropeBut the reprieve was not universal, with Germany measuring a record high temperature for June.People watch the sunrise this morning on the mountain Brocken in Schiere, Germany,Image: Matthias Bein/dpa via APA….Today, in northern and western France, hot-weather warnings were lifted days after the country posted successive record temperatures as it sizzled alongside Italy, Spain and some central European nations.The mercury was predicted to drop by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in Paris today but to continue rising in central and eastern Germany and in Italy before rainstorms cool things down by Tuesday.On Sunday, a record 38.9 Celsius was measured in Bad Kreuznach in Rhineland-Palatinate state, according to data from the national weather service, wiping out the previous high of 38.6 degrees recorded Wednesday in two other towns.Following on from high temperatures of the last few days, things were a bit cooler across the country today. Some showers and moderate winds kep temperatures a bit lower.The week ahead is looking mostly dry with a mix of sunshine and cloudy spells, and temperatures ranging from 15 to 22 degrees in some areas.MY PUBLISHED COMMENTJim MatkinNo one living or dead has witnessed climate change if they are true to science, because climate change is only a statistic that measures weather over centuries or millennia. The statistic comes from weather, but it is not the weather hot or cold.“Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time. W” .The alarmists media ignore science by portraying the recent heat wave in France as linked to climate change. This is impossible to know and in fact after a short 4 days France is now facing unusually colder weather for this time of year. The alarmists fooled again by ignoring the fact we are in the e ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd Holocene warming of the inter-glaciation of the Quaternary Ice Age for the past 2.5 million years and temperatures are swinging from hot (Medieval Warming) to cold (Little Ice Ag) in a chaotic and random fashion. This is not global warming.https://www.thejournal.ie/heatwa...INCONVENIENT : ‘The World Is Literally A Greener Place Than It Was Twenty Years Ago’ – NASAPosted: April 25, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmist media, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, Climatism, CO2, Environmentalism, Fact Check, Government Grants/Funding, NASA, Satellite Data | Tags: Carbon Dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation, China, Climate Change, Climatism, CO2, forestry, Global greening, Global Warming, India, nasa, NASA Earth Observatory, Science and Environment|Leave a commentChina and India Lead the Way in Greening | NASA (Climatism edit)“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russel***DON’T expect to see this ‘good’ environmental news on the mainstream media anytime soon.WHEN you’re in the business of demonising carbon dioxide and frightening theThunberg’skiddies for political and ideological ends, such good news comes as a rather unwelcome message!Via NASA Earth Observatory :China and India Lead the Way in GreeningThe world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India—the world’s most populous countries—are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They then set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5 percent are growing browner. The study was published on February 11, 2019, in the journalNature Sustainability.The maps on this page show the increase or decrease in green vegetation—measured in average leaf area per year—in different regions of the world between 2000 and 2017. Note that the maps are not measuring the overall greenness, which explains why the Amazon and eastern North America do not stand out, among other forested areas.“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation,” said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. “That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation.”globalgreening_tamo_2017This study was made possible thanks to a two-decade-long data record from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. An advantage of MODIS is the intensive coverage they provide in space and time: the sensors have captured up to four shots of nearly every place on Earth, every day, for the past 20 years.“This long-term data lets us dig deeper,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center and a co-author of the study. “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now with the MODIS data, we see that humans are also contributing.”China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.Another 32 percent of the greening change in China, and 82 percent in India, comes from intensive cultivation of food crops. The land area used to grow crops in China and India has not changed much since the early 2000s. Yet both countries have greatly increased both their annual total green leaf area and their food production in order to feed their large populations. The agricultural greening was achieved through multiple cropping practices, whereby a field is replanted to produce another harvest several times a year. Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by 35 to 40 percent since 2000.countrieschart_tamo_2017How the greening trend may change in the future depends on numerous factors. For example, increased food production in India is facilitated by groundwater irrigation. If the groundwater is depleted, this trend may change. The researchers also pointed out that the gain in greenness around the world does not necessarily offset the loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions such as Brazil and Indonesia. There are consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems beyond the simple greenness of the landscape.Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. “Once people realize there is a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 1970s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss was not good. In the 1990s, people realized it, and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using data courtesy of Chen et al.,(2019). Story by Abby Tabor, NASA Ames Research Center, with Mike Carlowicz, Earth Observatory.*GLOBAL GREENING…“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASANASA previously reported on the ‘greening of the earth’ thanks to the CO2 ‘fertilisation’ effect.HOWEVER, such good news was again carefully omitted by the mainstream media and environmental activists keen to preserve their ‘catastrophic’global warmingclimate change narrative and continue their demonisation of life-giving gas carbon dioxide, deceptively referring to it as “carbon pollution” :NASA ON (inconvenient) GLOBAL GREENING“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASACO2 is making Earth greener—for now – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet*BIAS BY OMISSION – THE WORST FORM OF PROPAGANDACSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate ResearchIN 2013, the CSIRO commissioned a study that found “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions.”THE ‘greening’ of deserts, thanks to rising CO2, happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement and apparently for the CSIRO, too! So, they simply removed the study from their website!http-::www.csiro.au:404.aspx?item=%2fportals%2fmedia%2fdeserts-greening-from-rising-co2&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=Phoenix.pnghttp://www.csiro.au/404.aspx?item=%2fportals%2fmedia%2fdeserts-greening-from-rising-co2&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=PhoenixCSIRO’s peer-reviewed study can be found at Science Daily :Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide- Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions — ScienceDailyDeserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions — ScienceDailyH/t @FrankWi74044551•••MORE on Global Greening :THE Most Amazing Greening On Earth | ClimatismNATURE STUDY : Global Forest Loss Over Past 35 Years More Than Offset By New Forest Growth | ClimatismCSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | ClimatismGood News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought | Climatism

CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS (Read it, it may save your life)A quote worth sharing“The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government”. 'Us'. - Rob Bilott (Dark Waters)The Man who cured CancerForgotten Genius: “Royal Raymond Rife”The inventor and his invaluable contributions to imaging and medical microscopyScience has known for quite some time that all things vibrate at their own personal frequency. Certain emotions sustained over time can change our vibrational frequencies and manifest in illness. Recently I read an article that explained how current research is using resonant frequency to destroy cancer cells. As exciting as that prospect is, it’s not a new approach. Royal Raymond Rife made an invaluable contribution to medical microscopes.As a scientist, inventor, and engineer, particularly in imaging and medical microscopy, Royal Raymond Rife was a genius. He was to medical optics what Nikola Tesla was to physics. In 1913, industrial tycoon Henry Timken of the Timken Roller Bearing Company in Canton, Ohio, sought Rife’s help to solve a manufacturing problem. The solution was a scanning machine that could evaluate the quality of the steel used in the company’s roller bearings before going into production. The scanner improved the quality of the company’s products and streamlined production to such a degree that Timken was overjoyed. When he learned that Rife’s passion was medical imaging, Timken gave him his full financial support and set him up at the family’s estate in San Diego to create his personal lab. No expense was too great and nothing was held back.Rife’s previous work had led him to believe that microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and parasites) were at the root of all disease. To prove his theory, he had to see these pathogens in their live state during his experiments, some of which were so small, particularly viruses, that no imaging equipment existed that could come close to viewing them. That wasn’t a stumbling block to Rife. As a mechanical engineer and microscopy expert, he built a microscope that could magnify 60,000 times, and the superior magnification was equaled by its resolution. The microorganisms Rife was viewing were so infinitesimally small that the atoms in the chemical stain normally used to expose microorganisms would have obscured them. Instead Rife’s microscope used monochromatic light that caused the organism to fluoresce. Rife could identify the virus he was observing by the color it refracted.Years later in 1944, both the “Journal of the Franklin Institute for Scientific and Mechanical Arts and The Smithsonian” featured the Rife Universal Microscope alongside the newly created electron microscope in articles on emerging technology in optics. In The Smithsonian article entitled “The New Microscopes,” three micrographs from the Rife Universal Microscope were printed. The resolution of those images was unmatched by any existing technology, including the electron microscope. In fact they’re still unmatched even by today’s technology. What’s more, those images were taken ten years prior by Rife in 1934. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. The other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image. Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come. Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wavThe other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image.Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come.Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it.Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. This allowed the frequency wave to penetrate deeply into the body with scalpel-like precision. Because the wave was precisely tuned to the frequency of the microorganism, only the pathogen was affected, leaving the surrounding tissue unharmed.Rife considered a disease cured when he could destroy a microorganism ten consecutive times using what he called its Mortal Oscillatory Rate (MOR). His surviving records show he found the MOR for 24 microorganisms including anthrax, cholera, tetanus, B. coli, influenza, spinal meningitis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, gonorrhea, leprosy, streptococcus, conjunctivitis, bubonic plague, staphylococcus, diphtheria, and typhoid.It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year.By now Rife’s accomplishments were attracting a lot of attention from the press and he was working with the most respected medical experts of the day. These included Dr. E. C. Rosenow, bacteriologist and head of the pathology department at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Arthur Kendall, bacteriologist at Northwestern University, Dr. Milbank Johnson of the University of Southern California (USC) and head of the Medical Society of California, Lee De Forrest, technology scientist, and William D. Coolidge, physicist.Unfortunately Rife was also attracting a lot of negative press, mainly from the FDA, American Medical Association, medical establishment and Harvard University. To prove his detractors wrong, he along with Dr. Rosenow invited several of Rife’s most prestigious but severest critics to a demonstration where he destroyed the poliomyelitis virus with its MOR (Mortal Oscillatory Rate) in 1932, twenty years before the vaccine was invented and thirty years before it became available to the public.Hidden beneath his critics’ astonishment at what they’d seen was panic. They knew Rife’s microscope and beam-ray technology would mean the loss of billions of dollars to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutes, not to mention the overnight elimination of entire fields of medical science and research, as well as the discrediting of thousands of careers of the most highly respected university and medical center physicians, scientists and administrators. Just days after the demonstration, Dr. Rosenow was fired from his position at the Mayo Clinic, and the fix was in to bury Rife’s research.Uneasy about Dr. Rosenow’s fate and what might be brewing for him behind the scenes, Rife pressed on. He knew a microorganism was at the root of cancer and was determined to find it. That same year, he discovered a virus in a breast tumor that he called the BX virus. Even more, he found the BX virus to be pleomorphic, meaning that it changed form based on its terrain. He discovered its MOR and was able to destroy it.Never having used his beam ray on a living creature, Rife introduced the BX virus into rats. Sure enough, they developed huge tumors. Using his beam ray to expose the tumors to their MOR, Rife was able to completely heal the rats. Seeing these incredible results, Dr. Johnson from USC insisted that it was time to try the beam ray on human patients. Rife was apprehensive, but insisted that if they were to have human trials, a research committee comprised of physicians at the top of the most prestigious medical associations had to be part of the proceedings. Dr. Johnson agreed and pulled a committee together that even included Dr. Alvin Ford, President of the American Association of Pathologists, a member Rife specifically requested.The trials included 16 terminally ill patients with various cancers and were conducted at the Ella Scripps mansion and estate in La Jolla, CA in 1934. In just 70 days, the committee declared the first 14 patients cured of their cancer. The remaining two were declared cured three weeks later. Incredibly, the patients only required two 3-minute sessions per week to achieve total recovery. Rife found that more-frequent sessions didn’t allow the lymphatic system enough time to take up the released toxins from the destroyed virus and remove them from the body.Later that year, a black tie banquet was held to honor Rife and “Celebrate the End of All Disease.” Less than 15 years later, however, none of the people at that dinner would even admit to knowing Rife, who would be left in poverty with his career ruined. His five microscopes would be confiscated along with the majority of his records and the two known beam-ray machines in existence. Today scientists are still struggling to recreate Rife’s technology from the remnants of what wasn’t destroyed of his writings.It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year. As an institution mired in politics and money, the medical establishment seems to be the worst at killing its prophets and saints. Hopefully this new generation of courageous scientists will be able to put together the pieces from an unsung genius and recreate the “end of all disease” in his memory.Hyperthermia (up to 113°F) kills cancer cell usually with minimal injury to normal tissue research should be done to channel and target it for curing cancer without damaging our brain and other organs.Watch it before it gets removed“Cancer cure coverup” Dr. S. R. Burzynski another genius who cured cancer.A pioneering medical doctor and PhD biochemist who won the largest and possibly the most convoluted legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history. Burzynski's battles were centered on his belief in Antineoplastons, a gene-targeting cancer therapy he discovered in the 1970s. The ultimate approval of Antineoplastons would mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, would hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting, life-saving medical breakthrough. Burzynski's first-person testimonials of cancer patients who chose his treatment instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation with full disclosure of original medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery.There is almost nothing about this film that isn't controversial. Even the Wikipedia entry, which is pretty tough on the doctor and his treatment, is challenged by the flims website, which claims "the Wikipedia editors refuse to allow anything that show these medicines in a positive light to be allowed to be included in the Wiki post."Watch the documentary by Eric Merola.Must watch might save someone's lifeDid you know?Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician and scientist, now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "saviour of mothers".Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing with chlorinated lime solution in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives wards.He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. He died 14 days later after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.Must ReadFor the past 27 years, Life Extension has identified life-saving medications that languished too long in the FDA’s archaic approval process.When effective new drugs are delayed, the inevitable consequence is needless human suffering and death. An equally insidious problem is the chilling effect bureaucratic roadblocks have on the development of better drugs that might actually cure the disease.Just imagine the difficulty of raising the tens of millions of dollars needed to get a new cancer drug into the approval pipeline when prospective investors see the FDA deny a drug with documented efficacy, as was done recently with Provenge. (Refer to page 7 for the complete story of the FDA’s denial of Provenge.)Another problem with the FDA’s unpredictable approval pattern is the outrageous cost of the cancer drugs that actually make it to market. Classes of cancer drugs (like anti-angiogenesis agents) that Life Extension long ago advocated are finally approved. The problem is that the out-of-pocket cost of these new drugs can exceed $12,000 per month. The media has reported on heart-wrenching stories of cancer patients who choose to die rather than send their families into bankruptcy from paying these costs.It’s easy to point fingers at drug companies for charging such extortionist prices, but the harsh reality is that getting these medications approved by the FDA is so costly and risky that the high prices can arguably be justified by the hideously inefficient drug approval process that now exists.In this article, we review a few of many drugs that have been shown to be effective against cancer, but are not yet approved by the FDA. While there are dozens of anti-cancer drugs in various stages of the approval process, the sad truth is that thousands of compounds with anti-cancer activity will never be submitted for FDA approval due to lack of patentability, lack of investor funding, or just plain unwillingness to deal with today’s cancer bureaucracy.It has become brutally apparent that the system of drug approval needs a radical overhaul. We have some specific proposals at the end of this eye-opening article.Each day, about 1,500 Americans perish from cancer. Each day, over 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with this dreaded disease.1 While the general population is relatively ignorant about medicine, virtually everyone knows that a cancer diagnosis means exposure to therapies that produce miserable—if not lethal—side effects. The public is also aware that in too many cases, government-approved therapies fail to cure the disease.*Now im gonna tell you something which you might find as a complete shocker*A conversation with the lawyer Rob Bilott is like a slap across the face. It doesn’t feel good. But it does get your attention.According to Bilott, we face a “unique health threat” from a class of industrial chemicals that most Americans have never heard of. These chemicals are widely used in everyday products such as non-stick cookware and stain-resistant fabrics, even though science show they are linked to a range of deadly diseases, reproductive problems and other ailments. Powerful corporations are fighting to protect the use of these profitable chemical compounds, Bilott says, and US regulators are doing next to nothing to stop them. It’s worth listening to what Bilott has to say. He has spent the last two decades advocating for people in West Virginia and Ohio whose water was contaminated with one of these toxins, a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.Do watch these movies if you haven't watched it yet. Based on this agenda.*Now lets get into some details*3MPFAS DANGER3M has long known it was contaminating the US food supplyMultinational manufacturer 3M, which developed two types of industrial chemical now found in the blood of virtually all Americans, has known since 2001 that those chemicals were entering the food supply, according to a newly surfaced study.That year, the company sponsored a study of several types of food from around the US. The study surfaced this week, when the Intercept’s Sharon Lerner reported that the document was on file with the US Environmental Protection Agency.3M made Scotchgard and other non-stick, waterproof, or stain-resistant products using PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in a class known as PFAS. Production of Scot ended after 2000. In 2001, 3M funded the study to test food samples from six US cities. High levels of the compounds were found in ground beef, milk, green beans and apples. The contaminated food came from Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.In a statement to Quartz, 3M said it published the report in 2001 and “shared this report with the EPA within seven days,” adding, “This report is one of thousands of documents we have placed in the public domain related to the study of PFAS chemistries. We will continue to engage with members of our communities, elected officials and regulators to share information about these chemistries,” 3M wrote.What 3M knew about PFASAs Lerner has reported, 3M knew as early as the 1970s that PFAS was accumulating in human blood, and conducted experiments on rats and monkeys that led the company to believe the compounds “should be regarded as toxic.”PFAS do not degrade in the environment. Decades of use has created a widespread and ongoing Contamination crisis. At this point, most people in the US have been exposed to chemicals in the PFAS family, of which there are as many as 5,000, and water supplies serving tens of millions are likely contaminated as well. The revelation about PFAS entering the food supply, however, is a relatively new addition to the roster of ways people have been exposed.PFAS chemicals have been linked to a range of health risks including cancer, thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, immune-system issues, and developmental problems in fetuses.Both 3M and DuPont have ceased production of PFOA and PFAS in the US, but DuPont continues to manufacture it in China. In Brazil, contamination is widespread due to a popular pesticide that degrades into PFAS. In Jordan0, researchers found PFAS in women’s breast milk at levels more than double the advised US health level. American dairy farmers have found PFAS in their milk. Other chemicals in the PFAS family, including GenX, continue to be manufactured in places like North Carolina.Decades of widespread use of PFAS for everything from waterproofing clothes to firefighting foam has made the exposure global: Health issues arising from PFAS are estimated to cost Europe 50 billion euros per year. A UN committee responsible for toxic chemical policy agreed to ban the compounds this year (the US is not party to the pact).PFAS back in the newsWord of the 19-year-old 3M study comes a week after nonprofit Environmental Working Group published a photo of a poster containing unreleased US Food and Drug Administration findings about PFAS in food. The agency detected PFAS in chocolate cake, meat, seafood, sweet potatoes, and pineapple. It was the first known test of food for PFAS by the FDA.After EWG’s poster release, the FDA published its findings along with a press release stating that the “FDA does not have any indication that these substances are a human health concern” at the levels detected, adding that the “science surrounding the potential health effects of PFAS is developing” and “current evidence suggests that the bioaccumulation of certain PFAS may cause serious health conditions.”“However, with the decrease in production and use of certain PFAS, levels in humans in the US have been declining,” the FDA added.As Lerner reports, Rob Bilott—whose 1999 lawsuit against DuPont on behalf of residents near its Teflon plant in West Virginia put PFAS contamination on the map wrote a June 11 letter to the FDA asking whether it knew about 3M’s food study before now and if how long officials knew there were high levels of the compounds in food.The FDA said in a statement that it has received Bilott’s letter “and is reviewing it at this time.”Why are highly fluorinated chemicals harmful?Highly fluorinated chemicals contain carbon-fluorine (C-F) bonds, which are some of the strongest bonds in nature. That makes them both incredibly resistant to breakdown and very useful. For instance, they can make products grease or stain-resistant, nonstick, or waterproof. However, this comes at a cost.The highly fluorinated chemicals that have been well-studied have been associated with:testicular and kidney cancerliver malfunctionhormonal changesthyroid disruptionhigh cholesterolobesityulcerative colitislower birth weight and sizeOther highly fluorinated chemicals are suspected of similarly causing health problems, but have not been well tested.Because they are resistant to breakdown, these chemicals can persist in our bodies for years. In the environment, they can last for millions of years. This means that the highly fluorinated chemicals released during our lifetimes will build up in the environment, and many future generations will be exposed to them, at even higher levels than we are today.Scientists from all over the world signed the Madrid Statement to share their concerns about highly fluorinated chemicals and are asking for a limit to the production and use of these chemicals.On May 1, 2015, the Madrid Statement was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a high-impact scientific journal.How are we exposed?Highly fluorinated chemicals are used in consumer products such as cookware, clothing, outdoor apparel, carpeting, and food packaging to provide nonstick, oil- and water resistant properties. They are also used in some kinds of cosmetics.We are exposed to them by direct contact with these products, but also through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.They have been detected at high levels in humans and wildlife all over the globe.What can you do?Ask yourself, “Do I really need products that are stain-resistant, nonstick, or waterproof?” Knowing the consequences, you might choose to give up some conveniences or product performance.Steps you can take:Avoid products that are oil repellant or stain resistant.Only purchase waterproof gear when you really need it.Avoid cosmetics with PTFE or any word containing “perfluor” or “polyfluor” on their ingredients list.Replace your Teflon nonstick cookware with cast iron, glass, or ceramic.Avoid microwave popcorn and greasy foods wrapped in paper.Tell retailers and manufacturers you want products without fluorinated chemicals.Support companies committed to phasing out highly fluorinated chemicals, such as the apparel brands that have joined Greenpeace’s detox campaign, and the fast food chains that removed them from food packaging as a result of EWG's action.If you are concerned about PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing an in-home filter on your tap. EWG summarized what is known about the efficacy of the different filter options.All products from these apparel brands are free of highly fluorinated chemicals after these dates.Look Carefully at the imagesHarsh truth is that medical facilities prioritise business rather than treatment and patient are customer for few doctor's.*SOURCES*Forgotten Genius: Royal Raymond Rife - Be Hive Of HealingHyperthermia in Cancer Treatment.Cancer Is 'Serious Business.' Is the 'Documentary'?'My Cancer Free Life'? Not So FastBurzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover-UpIgnaz Semmelweis - WikipediaThe Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare3M knew it was contaminating the food supply back in 2001Highly Fluorinated ChemicalsImage source- Google“Must Read” External LinkLife-Saving Cancer Drugs Not Approved by the FDA

Of course not. First, there is no Global Warming. One (1) degree total rise in temperature spread out over 140 years does not Global Warming make... that translated to less than 0.007 degrees per year which is NOTHING !Further, Co2 emissions, both natural and human, are not having a climate effect. They are wholly beneficial to the photosynthesis chemical process converting radiant energy to chemical. Co2 is heavier than air and does not hang in the atmosphere for long.The foundation of recent alarmism about potential Co2 global warming is built on sand lacking intellectual rigour pushed forward by left wing political group think from the likes of Al Gore. The low level of debate from the alarmists is embarrassing to intellectuals like Camille Paglia.I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target.Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.The real deniers are the alarmists who deny Mother Nature and natural variability. Piles of peer reviewed papers show the NEGLECTED SUN not trace amounts of vital plant food drives the climate. Denying natural variability and taking too short a view explains why 100% of alarmism fails to happen. Sea levels are not rising much, Arctic ice is expanding, Islands are rising not sinking, winters are not moderate without snow, etc. TEMPERATURES ARE FALLING AROUND THE GLOBE. IT IS GETTING COLDER NOT WARMER!The lack of correlation between Co2 and temperature is strong evidence of no effect. Co2 always lags temperature therefore it is not possible to be causative of temperature.Co2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITLong history from Antarctic Ice Core of Co2 lagging Temperature.Dr. Patrick Moore has presented research showing the C02 in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial and that we are starved at only 400 ppm for photosynthesis. We need more as in the past the average has been > 1000 ppm.The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (C02): Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist‬There is too minute amount of either natural Co2 or our emissions in the atmosphere to validate the so called warming effect using the fake greenhouse metaphor. Our emissions are near zero and no more than a ‘pinch of salt’ in the huge atmosphere.CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.Think about it this is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 %.Climate change happens over thousands of years, but man-mad Co2 is imperceptible in the earth’s temperatures. Earth’s temperature rises in the past have always preceded a rise in CO2 by a few hundred years according to peer reviewed research, not as Al Gore would have you believe, caused it.Easterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.39 to 0.42. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .Co2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minuteepidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !In my view the answer to this question is very relevant to upsetting the scare mongering from Al Gore and other alarmists about unprecedented global warming. The facts are there are too few Co2 molecules to have any effect on the earth’s climate. The amount of Co2 today at just 400 ppm [parts per million.] Co2 today pales in comparison with the past when there was more than 5000 ppm which is > 10 X as much! [ Remember with every breath out we exhale > 35,000 ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere.]The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.GREENHOUSE GASES COMPOSITIONHere is a key graph of all Greenhouse gases that shows detailed percentages of where the source of C02 in the atmosphere and human emissions are miniscule at only 0.117%. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from other natural sources it is foolish to think humans make any difference. Even the most costly efforts to limit human Co2 emissions if they succeeded would have a very small-- undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil...It may be a little hard to picture just how minute the fossil fuel emissions across the globe are. Please take 3 minutes to view this helpful Australian Rice video that helped Australia’s public decide to axe the futile carbon tax.AXE THE TAX AUSTRALIA THE RICE VIDEO 85880 32 CO2 1 HUMAN CO2It is hard to imagine, but essential to realize they have no effect on the climate, just how small the Co2 emissions from fossil fuels are. Co2 so small drawn to scale it is invisible.Even adjusting for unproven heat retention make little difference in the composition of Co2 in the atmosphere.Ibid, page 75"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net...The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.A PINCH OF SALTA much more accurate metaphor for Co2 is the well known “a pinch of salt makes everything taste better.” The minute amount of salt like Co2 has a chemical reaction with food making it more sugary and less bitter. But like Co2 a pinch of salt is too small to warm the food or the planet.It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph.THIS IS THE FAKE GREENHOUSE OF ALARMISM WITH NO PANELS COVERED WITH MINUTE AMOUNTS OF CO2.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax - Dr. Ivar Giaever- ‪Published on 12 Jul 2015- ‪Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.‪Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.--Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDhttp://www.shtfplan.com/headline..Comment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li...July 16, 2017 at 9:20 amDr. S. Fred SingerDr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world’s most respected and widely published experts on climate. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL, where he was principal investigator for the Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project (1989-94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981-86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).Dr. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report.Dr. Singer is author, coauthor, or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (ICS Press, 1992), Hot Talk Cold Science – Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, 1997, 1999), Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto (Hoover Institution, 2000), Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, revised ed. 2008), and three volumes in the NIPCC series: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (Heartland Institute, 2008), Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Heartland Institute, 2009), and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (Heartland Institute, 2011).Dr. Singer is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He was elected to the AAAS Council and served on the Committee on Council Affairs, and as Section Secretary. In 1997, NASA presented Dr. Singer with a commendation and cash award “for important contributions to space research.”Dr. Singer has given hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, State University of New York-Stony Brook, University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, University of Connecticut, University of Colorado, Imperial College-London, Copenhagen University, University of Rome, and Tel Aviv University. He has also given invited seminars at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Max Planck Institute for Extra-Terrestrial Physics in Munich, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and (2010) in New Delhi and Singapore.Dr. Singer has been a pioneer in many ways. At the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, he participated in the first experiments using high-altitude research rockets, measuring the energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays and the distribution of stratospheric ozone; he is generally credited with the discovery of the equatorial electrojet current flowing in the ionosphere. In academic science during the 1950s, he published the first studies on subatomic particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field – radiation belts, later discovered by James Van Allen.Dr. Singer was the first to make the correct calculations for using atomic clocks in orbit, contributing to the verification of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and now essential in the GPS system of satellite navigation. He also designed satellites and instrumentation for remote sensing of the atmosphere and received a White House Presidential Commendation for this work.In 1971, Dr. Singer calculated the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas. He also predicted that methane, once reaching the stratosphere, would transform into water vapor, which could then deplete stratospheric ozone. A few years later, methane levels were indeed found to be rising, and the increase in stratospheric water vapor was confirmed in 1995.Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate,"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."-S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginiahttps://www.nas.org/articles/Est...German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC© Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindetProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Here's the interview:NTZ: You were once a believer in the man-made CO2 climate disaster. What changed your mind?FV: I was Environmental Senator of Hamburg until 1998 and had had absolutely no doubts about the AGW hypothesis because global temperatures indeed had been running parallel with CO2 emissions. My first doubts over the IPCC's science arose after the dramatic errors of the 2007 4th Assessment Report came to light. On German public television PIK Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by the year 2035. Then as a CEO of Shell Repower Systems, and later RWE Innogy, where I was responsible for the development of renewable energies and discovered that natural factors were impacting our climate. We saw that the wind strength in Northwest Europe had been in decline year after year. Yet, climate scientists had told us just the opposite was supposed to occur, i.e. that wind strength would increase. So I looked at the literature in detail and was able to find there was a relationship with the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose 60-year cycle had entered a weak phase. I wrote articles about this in leading German dailies, and I was immediately branded as a "climate denier" by Stefan Rahmstorf. His reaction led me to look even deeper into the literature. In the end it was Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf who turned me into a skeptic.NTZ: Your climate science critical book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) was released early last year in Germany. It remained on the Spiegel bestseller list for 3 weeks. Has it changed the discussion in Germany? Were you surprised by the public's reaction?FV: The leftist, liberal media labeled me an "eco-reactionary" who represented obsolete positions. That was to be expected. What truly surprised me the most was the harsh reaction from German climate scientists who were not even willing to discuss the topics addressed in the book. And the longer our book remained on the bestseller list, and the longer the warming stop became, the more our adversaries' tactics ran aground. First they ignored us and then they tried to isolate us through personal defamation. Die kalte Sonne became the symbol of resistance against a politically indoctrinated science which denied natural processes and spread fear in order to promote a particular energy policy - one that threatened the prosperity and growth of the German industrial base. So to me it was a sort of an accolade when former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt invited me to a personal audience to find out more about Die kalte Sonne. Now I'm permitted to quote him: "Lüning's and Vahrenholt's assertions are plausible". The [former] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson invited me to London and encouraged me to publish the book in English. Now it is appearing this week as The Neglected Sun. It's the Die kalte Sonne in English, and it's been updated.NTZ: CO2 is supposed to be trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet global atmospheric temperatures haven't risen in 200 months (over 16 years). Where has all the "trapped heat" gone? Some leading scientists are frustrated that they cannot find it. What do you think is happening?FV: It's now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What's false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn't been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth's radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a "missing heat" cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no "missing heat". Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we've been hearing speculation about the deep ocean. On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world's leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there's a problem with climate science?FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That's why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years - never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to "prove" the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They'll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?FV: Certainly. That's what's so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don't fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany's media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?FV: This process is fully under way. But it's going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.Worse, it's a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world's photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we "sell" surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It's been a run-away train and it's too expensive. We are putting Germany's industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn't any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media - even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there's been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it's man's fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That's why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5thAssessment Report?FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC's tunnel vision is growing. But let's not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt is a German scientist, environmentalist, politician and industrialist. With his initial Doctorate in chemistry, Prof Vahrenholt has researched at the Max Planck Institute for Carbon Research at Mulheim. A former Senator and Deputy Environmental Minister for Hamburg, he has served on the Sustainable Advisory Board successively for Chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Angela Merkel.I have learned much be reading his text in detail.This book written 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.AMAZONThis comment on the book is worth reading.Randy A. Stadt5.0 out of 5 starsWith 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.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.