Day Notice To Comply Or Quit California Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Once you have great employees on board, how do you keep them from jumping ship? One way is by offering a good benefits package.Many small-business owners mistakenly believe they cannot afford to offer benefits. But while going without benefits may boost your bottom line in the short run, than penny-wise philosophy could strangle your business's chances for long-term prosperity. "There are certain benefits good employees feel they must have," says Ray Silverstein, founder of PRO, President's Resource Organization, a small-business advisory network.Heading the list of must-have benefits is medical insurance, but many job applicants also demand a retirement plan, disability insurance and more. Tell these applicants no benefits are offered, and often top-flight candidates will head for the door.The positive side to this coin: Offer the right benefit, and your business may just jump-start its growth. "Give employees the benefits they value, and they'll be more satisfied, miss fewer workdays, be less likely to quit, and have higher commitment to meeting the company's goals," says Joe Lineberry, a senior vice president at Aon Consulting, a human resources consulting firm. "The research shows that when employees feel their benefits needs are satisfied, they're more productive."Benefit BasicsThe law requires employers to provide employees with certain benefits. You must:Give employees time off to vote, serve on a jury and perform military service.Comply with all workers' compensation requirements.Withhold FICA taxes from employees' paychecks and pay your own portion of FICA taxes, providing employees with retirement and disability benefits.Pay state and federal unemployment taxes, thus providing benefits for unemployed workers.Contribute to state short-term disability programs in states where such programs exist.Comply with the Federal Family and Medical Leave (FMLA).You are not required to provide:Retirement plansHealth plans (except in Hawaii)Dental or vision plansLife insurance plansPaid vacations, holidays or sick leaveIn reality, however, most companies offer some or all of these benefits to stay competitive.Most employers provide paid holidays for New Year's, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving day and Christmas day. Many employers also either allow their employees to take time off without pay or let them use vacation days for religious holidays. (See more on time off in "The Low-Cost Benefits of Offering Time Off").Most full-time employees will expect one to two weeks paid vacation time per year. In explaining your vacation policy to employees, specify how far in advance requests for vacation time should be made, and whether in writing or verbally. There are no laws that require employers to provide funeral leave, but most do allow two to four days' leave for deaths of close family members.The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires employers to give workers up to 12 weeks off to attend to the birth or adoption of a baby, or the serious health condition of the employee or an immediate family member. After 12 weeks of unpaid leave, you must reinstate the employee in the same job or an equivalent one. The 12 weeks of leave does not have to be taken all at once; in some cases, employees can take it a day at a time.In most states, only employers with 50 or more employees are subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act. However, some states have family leave laws that place family leave requirements on businesses with as few as five employees. To find out your state's requirements, contact you state labor department.Legal MattersComplications quickly arise as soon as business begins offering benefits, however. That's because key benefits such as Health Insurance and retirement plans fall under government scrutiny, and "it is very easy to make mistakes in setting up a benefits plan," says Kathleen Meagher, an attorney specializing in benefits at Kirkpatrick Lockhart LLP.And don't think nobody will notice. The IRS can discover in an audit what you are doing doesn't comply with regulations. So can the U.S. Department of Labor, which has been beefing up its audit activities of late. Either way, a goof can be very expensive. "You can lose any tax benefits you have enjoyed, retroactively, and penalties can also be imposed," Meagher says.The biggest mistake? Leaving employees out of the plan. Examples range from exclusions of part-timers to failing to extend benefits to clerical and custodial staff. A rule of thumb is that if one employee gets a tax-advantaged benefit--meaning one paid for with pretax dollars--the same benefit must be extended to everyone. There are loopholes that may allow you to exclude some workers, but don't even think about trying this without expert advice.Such complexities mean its good advice never to go this route alone. You can cut costs by doing preliminary research yourself, but before setting up any benefits plan, consult a lawyer or a benefits consultant. An upfront investment of perhaps $1,000 could save you far more money down the road by helping you sidestep expensive potholes.Expensive ErrorsProviding benefits that meet employee needs and mesh with all the laws isn't cheap--benefits probably add 30 to 40 percent to base pay for most employees--and that makes it crucial to get the most from these dollars. But this is exactly where many small businesses fall short because often their approach to benefits is riddled with costly errors that can get them in financial trouble with their insurers or even with their own employees. The most common mistakes:Absorbing the entire cost of employee benefits. Fewer companies are footing the whole benefits bill these days. According to a survey of California companies by human resources management consulting firm William M. Mercer, 91 percent of employers require employee contributions toward health insurance, while 92 percent require employees to contribute toward the cost of insuring dependants. The size of employee contributions varies from a few dollars per pay period to several hundred dollars monthly, but one plus of any co-payment plan is it eliminates employees who don't need coverage. Many employees are covered under other policies--a parent's or spouses, for instance--and if you offer insurance for free, they'll take it. But even small co-pay requirements will persuade many to skip it, saving you money.Covering nonemployers. Who would do this? Lots of business owners want to buy group-rate coverage for their relatives or friends. The trouble: If there is a large claim, the insurer may want to investigate. And that investigation could result in disallowance of the claims, even cancellation of the whole policy. Whenever you want to cover somebody who might not qualify for the plan, tell the insurer or your benefits consultant the truth.Sloppy paperwork. In small businesses, administering benefits is often assigned to an employee who wears 12 other hats. This employee really isn't familiar with the technicalities and misses a lot of important details. A common goof: Not enrolling new employees in plans during the open enrollment period. Most plans provide a fixed time period for open enrollment. Bringing an employee in later requires proof of insurability. Expensive litigation is sometimes the result. Make sure the employees overseeing this task stays current with the paperwork and knows that doing so is a top priority.Not telling employees what their benefits cost. "Most employees don't appreciate their benefits, but that's because nobody ever tells them what the costs are," says PRO's Silverstein. Many experts suggest you annually provide employees with a benefits statement that spells out what they're getting and at what cost. A simple rundown of the employee's individual benefits and what they cost the business is very powerful.Giving unwanted benefits. A workforce composed largely of young, single people doesn't need life insurance. How to know what benefits employee's value? You can survey employees and have them rank benefits in terms of desirability. Typically, medical and financial benefits, such as retirement plans, appeal to the broadest cross-section of workers.If workers needs vary widely, consider the increasingly popular " cafeteria plans ," which give workers lengthy lists of possible benefits plus a fixed amount to spend.Health InsuranceHealth insurance is one of the most desirable benefits you can offer employees. There are several basic options for setting up a plan:A traditional indemnity plan, or fee for service. Employees choose their medical care provider; the insurance company either pays the provider directly or reimburses employees for covered amounts.Managed care. The two most common forms of managed care are the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). An HMO is essentially a prepaid health-care arrangement, where employees must use doctors employed by or under contract to the HMO and hospitals approved by the HMO. Under a PPO, the insurance company negotiates discounts with the physicians and the hospitals. Employees choose doctors from an approved list, then usually pay a set amount per office visit (typically $10 to $25); the insurance company pays the rest.Self insurance. When you absorb all or a significant portion of a risk, you are essentially self-insuring. An outside company usually handles the paperwork, you pay the claims and sometimes employees help pay premiums. The benefits include greater control of the plan design, customized reporting procedures and cash-flow advantages. The drawback is that you are liable for claims, but you can limit liability with "stop loss" insurance--if a claim exceeds a certain dollar amount, the insurance company pays it.Archer Medical Savings Account. : Under this program, an employee of a small employer (50 or fewer employees) or a self-employed person can set up an Archer MSA to help pay health-care expenses. The accounts are set up with a U.S. financial institution and allow you to save money exclusively for medical expenses. When used in conjunction with a high-deductible insurance policy, accounts are funded with employee's pretax dollars. Under the Archer MSA program, disbursements are tax-free if used for approved medical expenses. Unused funds in the account can accumulate indefinitely and earn tax-free interest. Health-savings accounts (HSAs), available as of January 2004, are similar to MSAs but are not restricted to small employers.Cost ContainmentThe rising costs of health insurance have forced some small businesses to cut back on the benefits they offer. Carriers that write policies for small businesses tend to charge very high premiums. Often, they demand extensive medical information about each employee. If anyone in the group has a pre-existing condition, the carrier may refuse to write a policy. Or, if someone in the company becomes seriously ill, the carrier may cancel the policy the next time it comes up for renewal.Further complicating manners, some states are mandating certain health-care benefits so that if an employer offers a plan at all, it has to include certain types of coverage. Employers who can't afford to comply often have to cut out insurance altogether. The good news: Many states are tying to ease the burden by passing laws that make it easier for small businesses to get health insurance and that prohibit insurance carriers from discriminating against small firms. (MSAs, described above, are in part a response to the problems small businesses face.) The following states make some special provision concerning small employers and health insurance: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming.Until more laws are passed, what can a small business do? There are ways to cut costs without cutting into your employees' insurance plan. A growing number of small businesses band together with other entrepreneurs to enjoy economies of scale and gain more clout with insurance carriers.Many trade associations offer health insurance plans for small-business owners and their employees at lower rates. Your business may have only five employees, but united with the other, say, 9,000 association members and their 65,000 employees, you have substantial clout. The carrier issues a policy to the whole association; your business's coverage cannot be terminated unless the carrier cancels the entire association.Associations are able to negotiate lower rates and improved coverage because the carrier doesn't want to lose such a big chunk of business. This way, even the smallest one-person company can choose from the same menu of health-care options that big companies enjoy.Associations aren't the only route to take. In some states, business owners or groups have set up health-insurance networks among businesses that have nothing in common but their size and their location. Check with your local chamber of commerce to find out about such programs in your area.Some people have been ripped off by unscrupulous organizations supposedly peddling "group" insurance plans at prices 20 to 40 percent below the going rate. The problem: These plans don't pay all policyholders' claims because they're not backed by sufficient cash reserves. Such plans often have lofty-sounding names that suggest a larger association of smaller employees.How to protect yourself from a scam? Here are some tips:Compare prices. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Ask for references from other companies that have bought from the plan. How quick was the insurer in paying claims? How long has the reference dealt with the insurer? If it's less than a few months, that's not a good sign.Check the plan's underwriter. The underwriter is the actual insurer. Many scam plans claim to be administrators for underwriters that really have nothing to do with them. Call the underwriter's headquarters and the insurance department of the state in which it's registered to see if it' really affiliated with the plan. To check the underwriter's integrity, ask you state's department for its "A.M. Best" rating, which grades companies according to their ability to pay claims. Also ask for its "claim-paying ability rating", which is monitored by services like Standard and Poor's. If the company is too new to be rated, be wary.Make sure the company follows state regulations. Does the company claim it's exempt? Check with your state's insurance department .Ask the agent or administrator to show you what his or her commission, advance or administrative cost structure is. Overly generous commissions can be a tip-off; some scam operations pay agents up to 500 percent commission.Get help. Ask other business owners if they've dealt with the company. Contact the Better Business Bureau to see if there are any outstanding complaints. If you think you're dealing with a questionable company, contact your state insurance department or your nearest Labor Department Office of Investigations.Above and BeyondWhat does COBRA mean to you? No, it's not a poisonous snake coming back to bite you in the butt. The Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA) extends health-insurance coverage to employees and dependents beyond the point at which such coverage traditionally ceases.COBRA allows a former employee after he or she has quit or been terminated (except for gross misconduct) the right to continued coverage under you group health for up to 18 months. Employee's spouses can obtain COBRA coverage for up to 36 months after divorce or death of the employee, and children can receive up to 36 months of coverage when they reach the age at which they are no longer classified as dependents under the group health plan.The good news: Giving COBRA benefits shouldn't cost you company a penny. Employers are permitted by law to charge recipients 102 percent of the cost of extending the benefits (the extra two percent covers administrative costs).The federal COBRA plan applies to all companies with more than 20 employees. However, many states have similar laws that pertain to much smaller companies, so even if your company is exempt for federal insurance laws, you may still have to extend benefits under certain circumstances. Contact the U.S. Department of Labor to determine whether your company must offer COBRA or similar benefits, and the rules for doing so.Retirement PlansA big mistake some business owners make is thinking they can't afford to fund a retirement plan in lieu of putting profits back into the business. But less than half of the employees at small companies participate in retirement plans. And companies that do offer this benefit report increased employee retention and happier, more efficient workers. Also, don't forget about yourself: Many business owners are at risk of having insufficient funds saved for retirement.To encourage more businesses to launch retirement plans, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 provides a tax credit for costs associated with starting a retirement plan, including a 401(k) plan, SIMPLE plan or Simplified Employee Pension (SEP). The credit equals 50 percent of the first $1,000 of qualified startup costs, including expenses to set up and administer the plan and educate employees about it. For more information, see IRS Form 8881, Credit for Small Employers Pension Plan Start-up Costs(PDF).Don't ignore the value of investing early. If, starting at age 35, you invested $3,000 each year with a 14-percent annual return; you would have an annual retirement income of nearly $60,000 at age 65. But $5,000 invested at the same rate of return beginning at age 45 only results in $30,700 in annual retirement income. The benefit of retirement plans is that savings from tax-free until you withdraw the funds--typically age 59. If you withdraw funds before that age, the withdrawn amount is fully taxable and also subject to a 10-percent penalty. The value of tax-free investing over time means it's best to start right away, even if you start with small increments.Besides the long-term benefit of providing for your future, setting up a retirement plan also has the immediate gratification of cutting taxesHere is a closer look at a range of retirement plans for yourself and your employees.Individual Retirement Account (IRA)An IRA is a tax-qualified retirement savings plan available to anyone who works and/or their spouse, whether the individual is an employee or a self-employed person. One of the biggest advantages of these plans is that the earnings on your IRA grow on a tax-deferred basis until you start withdrawing the funds. Whether your contribution to an IRA is deductible will depend on your income level and whether you're covered by another retirement plan at work.You also may want to consider a Roth IRA. While contributions are not tax deductible, withdrawals you make at retirement will not be taxed. The maximum annual contribution individuals can put in either a Roth or a traditional IRA is $3,000 for 2004, assuming they meet the eligibility requirements.To qualify for Roth IRA contributions, a single person's adjusted gross income (AGI) must be less than $95,000, with benefits phasing out completely at $110,000. For married couples filing jointly, the AGI must be less than $150,000. The contribution amount is decreased by 30 percent (35 percent if 50 or older) until it is eliminated completely at $160,000 for joint filers. For 2005 to 2007, the contribution limit for both single and joint filers climbs to $4,000 per person and to $5,000 per person in 2008. After that, contributions and indexed to inflation.Regardless of income level, you can qualify for a deductible IRA as long as you do not participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401 (k). If you are in an employer plan, you can qualify for a deductible IRA if you meet the income requirements. Keep in mind that it's possible to set up or make annual contributions to an IRA any time you want up to the date your federal income tax return is due for that year, not including extensions. The contribution amounts for deductible IRA's are the same as for Roth IRA's.For joint filers, even if one spouse is covered by a retirement plan, the spouse who is not covered by a plan may make a deductible IRA contribution if the couple's adjusted gross income is $150,000 or less. Like the Roth IRA, the amount you can deduct is decreased in stages above that income level and is eliminated entirely for couples with incomes over 160,000. Nonworking spouses and their working partners can contribute up to $6,000 to IRAs ($3,000 each), provided the working spouse earns at least $6,000. It's possible to contribute an additional $500 for each spouse who is at least 50 years old at the end of the year, as long as there is the necessary earned income. For example, two spouses over 50 could contribute a total of $7,000 if there is at least $7,000 of earned income.Saving Incentive Match Plan For Employees (SIMPLE)SIMPLE plans are one of the most attractive options available for small-business owners. With these plans, you can choose to use a 401(k) or an IRA as your retirement plan.A SIMPLE plan is just that--simple to administer. This type of retirement plan doesn't come with a lot of paperwork and reporting requirements.You can set up a SIMPLE IRA only if you have 100 or fewer employees who have received $5,000 or more in compensation from you in the preceding year. The employer must make contributions the plan by either matching each participating employee's contribution, dollar for dollar, up to 3 percent of each employee's pay, or by making an across-the-board 2-percent contribution for all employees, even if they don't participate in the plan, which can be expensive.The maximum amount each employee can contribute to the plan can't be more than $9,000 for 2004; the amount increases to $10,000 in 2005. After that, the amount will be indexed for inflation. Participants in a SIMPLE IRA who are age 50 or over at the end of the calendar year can also make a catch-up contribution of an additional $1,500 in 2004, $2,000 in 2005 and $2,500 in 2006.Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) PlanAs its name implies, this is the simplest type of retirement plan available. Essentially, a SEP is a glorified IRA that allows you to contribute a set percentage up to a maximum amount each year. Paperwork is minimal, and you don't have to contribute every year. And regardless of the name, you don't need employees to set one up.If you do have employees(well, that's the catch. Employees do not make any contributions to SEPS. Employers must pay the full cost of the plan, and whatever percentage you contribute for yourself must be applied to al eligible employees. The maximum contribution is 25 percent of an employee's compensation (up to a maximum of $200,000) or $40,000, whichever is less.KOEGH PlanA KEOGH retirement plan can be set up by self-employed individuals and doesn't require advanced IRS approval. There are two types of KEOGH plans available. One is defined-benefit, which allows participants to contribute a maximum of the lesser of either 100 percent of their average compensation for the three consecutive years of highest compensation as an active participant, or $170,000. Then there's defined contribution, which allows for contributions of up to $42,000 for either a profit-sharing defined contribution plan or a money-purchase plan. The deadline for setting up a KEOGH plan is the end of the tax year (December 31), and the deadline for making contributions to the KEOGH plan is the same as the SEP--the due date for your Form 1040 individual tax return (including extensions). 401(k) Plans401(k) plans take their name from the section of the federal tax code that provides for them. These plans let you and your employees set aside a percentage of salary tax-free every year. As a kicker, the funds grow tax-free until they're withdrawn. 401(k) plans are very popular benefits with employees because they allow you--the employer--to essentially pay workers more without that income being taxed. Compared to SEPs, 401(k) plans are more popular with employers because most of the contribution comes from the employees.The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs the way 401(k) plans are set up and managed. There are many responsibilities that go with setting up a 401(k) program. For instance, you or someone you select has to determine the investment options employees will get to choose from. You have to monitor the investment's performance as well as the service provided by whomever is administering your plan. ERISA exists to make sure any fees that are charged are "reasonable." Setting up a 401(k) is a complicated procedure governed by many arcane rules. You should never do it without consulting with a qualified tax advisor.Where to GoWith so many choices available, it's good idea to talk to your accountant about which type of plan is best for you. Once you know what you want, where do you go to set up a retirement plan?Savings certificates (often at higher yields than at banks or savings and loans)Personal and auto loansLines of creditChecking accountsChristmas club accountsOnly state-chartered credit unions are allowed to add new companies to their membership rosters. To find a credit union that will accept your company, call your state's league of credit unions .When comparing credit unions, get references and check them. Find out how communicative and flexible the credit union is. Examine the accessibility. Are there ATMs? Is there a location near your business? Consider the end users--your employees.Once your company is approved, designate one person to be the primary liaison with the credit union. That person will maintain information about memberships as well as enrollment forms and loan applications. Kick things off by asking accredit union representative to conduct on-site enrollment and perhaps return periodically for follow-up or new sign-ups.This how-to was excerpted from Start Your Own Business, Grow Your Business and "Selecting the Right Retirement Plan" by David Meier.

In 1904, JC Brown, a British prospector, was hired by the Lord Cowdray Mining Company in London, to search for possible locations where gold deposits may be located in Northern California. By his own account, while investigating around Mount Shasta, he noticed an odd looking piece of rock that did not match the surrounding area. As he began clearing the debris and vegetation surrounding the rock, he noticed that there was a hole leading into a cavern system that led deep into Mount Shasta. He journeyed for about three miles into the interior of the mountain through an array of crisscrossing tunnel systems when he began stumbling across pieces of gold. After the eleventh mile he reached a location that resembled a village. Inside the village he came across chambers filled with gold and copper tablets, statues, spears and skeletons. The average heights of these skeletons were around 6’6” and the tallest being 10 feet in height. He painstakingly took down notes for the next few days, memorizing everything the best that he could and left everything exactly the way that he had found it.Brown spent the next 30 years researching and trying to build a group of experts to embark on an expedition. By this time he was 79 years old, living in Stockton, California, and had gained a following of about 80 people willing to contribute on the expedition including a museum curator and several scientists. He spent six weeks planning out the entire trip while several individuals sold off their properties believing that they would soon become rich. Brown, assumedly fearing that someone might jump the gun, withheld a lot of the specifics regarding the location of the cavern system. He met with the team one last time to make final preparations and established the time and place of departure; June 19th, at 1:00pm. However, that was the last time anyone saw J.C. Brown. Stockton Police spent the next several months investigating his disappearance to no avail. Theories ran amok, had he returned by himself? Was he kidnapped? Did he scam everyone? The simple fact remained, he never made a penny from his story nor did he have anything to gain from it.Stories surrounding Mount Shasta have long existed dating back to the earliest of Native American legends. Some of these older myths pertain to an invisible people who dwell within the mountain itself while newer claims attest to hidden passageways and rooms of gold existing within. From treasure seekers to spiritualists alike, the draw of Mount Shasta deeply resonates within. The snow-capped mountain with its radiant splendor will always inspire the imaginations of all who stare up from its shadow. I decided to take a look at the evolution of these legends and investigate for myself any possible proof that may lend credence to the existence of forgotten realm that may lay hidden within the mountain.Indigenous LoreAbout 50 miles west of Mount Shasta, the Yurok Native Americans lived along the Klamath River for untold centuries. Oral stories and traditions passed down in both popular and esoteric fashion continued to make their way well into the 19thcentury. The accuracy of these oral traditions over time have been notably documented by academics. For one instance, such descriptions of specific evolving natural landscapes can attest as proof to these oral traditions and how accurately they match up with geological changes over time. According to the Yurok, as well as other local nearby tribes, there was once a race of mystic-like individuals with ‘white-skin’ known as the Wa-gas. They were ancient beings who made their way into the Americas long before their own arrival, and whom were considered highly peaceful. The indigenous populations at the time intermixed to some degree with the Wa-gas and there were no wars between all surrounding communities.At some point in time the Wa-gas “went toward the north from whence we came, and disappeared from our land beyond the northern seas…All the half-castes with the exception of a few went away with the Wa-gas, and nearly all those that were three-quarters Indian remained with our people.” They reassured the Yurok that they would one day return and upon their return “peace and happiness will reign supreme again over this great land, and evil will be cast out.” Variations of this legend among the Yurok suggest that not all the Wa-gas left during the exodus towards the north and that perhaps some went into seclusion or refrained from interaction (as they had done so upon their own arrival–into the mountains). Some Yurok variations see them as immortal, due to their ‘spiritual-like’ powers and in many instances taught them how to ‘keep the world in balance’, as they do. The Wa-gas, also spelled (Wo’gey, Woge, or Wah-Ghas), gave specific instructions on how to communicate with them if needed:If a person wants to tell me something, let him come up (into the hills) and stay all night. Let him take tobacco with him and angelica root, only those two. And he must be careful of himself before he does that: he must get sweathouse wood, and drink no water, and go with no women. Then I shall answer him; and if I answer him he will have what he tells me that he wants. And he may not eat in the house with others. He will have to eat his food (separately) for ten days.–A.L. Kroeber, Yurok MythsOther local indigenous people who once lived around Mount Shasta itself considered the mountain highly sacred. When they walked upon the mountain they were, under no circumstance, allowed to venture past the timber line. They believed inside the mountain lived the Great Spirit of which they had the utmost veneration towards. The local Wintu people (as well as the Pit River tribe) claim that the mountain is the home of ‘little people’ who dwell inside the mountain–similar to some Yurok descriptions of the Wa-gas. Like the other tribes, they do not venture on to the mountain itself. They claim that during their ceremonies these ‘little people’ would venture nearby to watch over. They are always around and can be heard at times. Lastly, the mountain itself took a particular centralized role within the legends themselves, such as the various flood myths of the area and how it was utilized as a means of survival. The mountain remains a focal point for their general mythology as well as highly respected entity as a means for their own survival. Only a select few were allowed to venture onto its slopes, following ritualistic protocol, in order to obtain sacred medicine found on the mountain itself. These stories remain largely obscure today, however, for the local indigenous populations that remain Mount Shasta still remains as a sacred place to be carefully looked after.A Dweller on Two PlanetsWhat secrets perchance are about us? We do not know as we lie there, our bodies resting, our souls filled with peace, nor do we know until many years are passed out through the back door of time that that tall basalt cliff conceals a doorway. We do not suspect this, nor that a long tunnel stretches away, far into the interior of majestic Shasta. Wholly unthought is it that there lie at the tunnel’s far end vast apartments, the home of a mystic brotherhood, whose occult arts hollowed that tunnel and mysterious dwelling: “Sach” the name is. Are you incredulous as to these things? Go there, or suffer yourself to be taken as I was, once! See, as I saw, not with the vision of flesh, the walls, polished as by jewelers, though excavated as by giants; floors carpeted with long, fleecy gray fabric that looked like fur, but was a mineral product; ledges intersected by the builders, and in their wonderful polish exhibiting veinings of gold, of silver, of green copper ores, and maculations of precious stones. Verily, a mystic temple, made afar from the madding crowd, a refuge whereof those who, “Seeing, see not,” can truly say:“And no man knows . . .“And no man saw it e’er.”Once I was there, friend, casting pebbles in the stream’s deep pools; yet it was then hid, for only a few are privileged. And departing, the spot was forgotten, and to-day, unable as any one who reads this, I cannot tell its place. Curiosity will never unlock that secret. Does it truly exist? Seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. Shasta is a true guardian and silently towers, giving no sign of that within his breast. But there is a key. The one who first conquers self, Shasta will not deny.This is the last scene. You have viewed the proud peak both near and far; by day, by night; in the smoke, and in the clear mountain air; seen its interior, and from its apex gazed upon it and the globe stretched away ‘neath your feet. ‘Tis a sight of God’s handiwork, sublime, awful, never to be forgotten; and as thy soul hath rated itself with admiration thereof, in that measure be now filled with His Peace.–Frederick S. Oliver, A Dweller on Two Planets (Seven Shasta Scenes; Interlude: Part VII)Very little is known about Frederick S. Oliver and his book A Dweller on Two Planets. By his own account between 1883 and 1884, at the age of 17, he was surveying his family’s mining claim in the town of Yreka when something overtook control of his hand and he began to frantically write down in his notebook. Frightened, he ran home, sat down and allowed his hand to continue writing. A few pages at a time each day, this automatic writing lasted the next several years until he had completed the book. He finished the book in 1886, however, it wasn’t published until 1905 by his mother Mary Elizabeth Manley-Oliver, 6 years after his death at the age of 33.According to Oliver, the automatic writing was channeled through him by ‘Phylos the Thibetan’ who retold through him the story of Atlantis (or Poseidi, as he refers to it) and the several lives that he had gone through. Though the book is a little erratic, it does follow a consistent flow from start to finish. Some of the undreamed of technologies mentioned within the book pretty accurately resemble scientific breakthrough technologies that we take for granted today. As this ancient civilization of Poseidi began to expand somehow they began to reduce themselves to almost a primitive and superstitious-like culture. This domino effect ultimately led to the downfall of their civilization. Written from a vividly detailed perspective Phylos recounts several lives from Atlantis, through South America, and ultimately in the United States.The most recent of these lives consists that of Walter Pierson, a Civil War veteran, who after the war in the 1860’s ended up at Mount Shasta to try his luck at prospecting. During this time he meets with a Chinese immigrant named Quong, who claims to have been watching him over the years. Quong then begins to teach Pierson about life and certain spiritual techniques such as taming wild animals. After some days Quong takes Pierson deep into Mount Shasta via a tunnel where he sees vast rooms cut into the rock decorated in gold and quartz. At some point he is then introduced to people from around the world who claim to be a part of an ancient brotherhood who are headquartered within Mount Shasta. Pierson’s life came to an end in 1880 in a shipwreck off Bermuda, 3 years before the Phylos established contact with Frederick.The Lemurian CrazeIn the 1920’s several secretive Tibetan manuscripts were handed over to the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC based in San Jose, California. These manuscripts made mentions of an ancient civilization that once existed in the Pacific Ocean, to which they called Lemuria (based on Theosophical teachings of the time). The order then privately published a few small articles for its members alluding to the existence of a mysterious ancient cult in the Mount Shasta vicinity. The head of AMORC at the time was Dr. Harvey Spencer Lewis, who then later published a book, Lemuria: the lost continent of the Pacific, based primarily on the manuscripts as well as speculative accounts that could reinforce the possibility of an ancient civilization once existing. According to Lewis, who authored the book under the penname ‘Wishar S. Cerve’, after the downfall of the civilization a few mystics heeding the warnings left the continent and travelled to present-day California before the ultimate destruction of their own homeland. There are mentions of several of these colonies in existence today, descendants of these original mystics, who now live in secret around North and Central America, most specifically around Mount Shasta.The book mentions strange sightings of mystic-like people around Mount Shasta and how they dwell deep inside the mountain, similar to Oliver’s account in Dweller on Two Planets. After the book was published in 1931, a Lemurian craze began. People began flocking to Mount Shasta in hopes of capturing a Lemurian or entering into the cavern system in hopes of finding the hidden treasure within. There were many instances of people shooting guns blindly into the dark forests around the mountain and even throwing explosive devices into the various caves in hopes of scaring them out. People then slowly began to capitalize on the craze claiming that they were initiated into the Lemurian community and with donations they too could become an initiate. Similarly, there were claims that people knew the exact entrances to these secret tunnels and with money they could show them the way in, only they would turn around, take the money and run. Several cult-like groups (such as the I AM movement and Lemurian Fellowship) began to form based on both Dweller on Two Planets and AMORC’s Lemuria. And some took it even further claiming to have been approached by ‘ascended masters’ on the slopes of Mount Shasta (on par with Theosophical beliefs).A few years later the Rosicrucian Order published a claim to its members stating that they had made contact with representatives of this secret community and that they would be abandoning Mount Shasta due to unwanted publicity. Dr. Lewis stated that in October 12th, 1935 they had begun the relocation process with the aid of a select few (similar to the claim made by Dr. Robert D. Stelle who created the Lemurian Fellowship the following year). They were relocating to other colonies within Canada and Mexico. Further details regarding this relocation were to be disclosed at a later time, however, Dr. Lewis died shortly before revealing anything else.The purport of the visit was to inform me quite definitely…that the main body of this mystic colony, meaning the essential group of individuals and their chief officers and most advanced directors of the colony, has moved the center of activities and isolated residence from the very old location of Mt. Shasta to another more isolated, secret, and desirable location in California. The new location is not an arbitrarily selected site but rather a place that was for several centuries occupied and used by these mystics and especially by a large section of them that had at one time occupied a large territory in another part of this Western World. This new location was never completely abandoned, but has always been maintained by a few with great secrecy because of all the treasures (not gold or silver coin) hidden and preserved there and because of the existence of several very beautiful and unique temples or sanctuaries…–Dr. Spencer Lewis, A New Lemurian Mystery: A Surprising story about the Mystics of Mt. Shasta (PDF)— click for full articleShasta today, the New Age meccaThe 1930’s began to turn Mount Shasta and the surrounding area into a mecca for spiritualism and people of the weird kind. After a man named Guy Ballard claimed to have met Count Saint Germain, the supposed immortal from the 1800’s, in the flesh on the slopes of the mountain, people began to flock heavily into the area. To this day a walk down the main street of the town of Mount Shasta one can easily spot the array of new age bookstores and other pseudo-spiritualist ‘centers’ open for business. As well-meaning as they seem to be, they are easily misguided in their own lack of understanding of the mountain itself. Several groups continued on the claims of Guy Ballard and Frederick Oliver and it exploded into what you see today. While walking around and opening up about my interest in Mount Shasta I began to hear it all from Telos, the supposed city inside the mountain created by a ‘psychic channeler’ in 2000, to the reptilian shapeshifting overlords who inhabit Panther Meadows near the top…I heard it all.These stories and legends have a way of impacting your subconscious in the least unsuspecting way. The first time I visited Mount Shasta was in 2007, with my mother and father, we were wandering bookstore to bookstore looking at everything from Lemurian crystal wands to paintings of some pretty wild stuff. Afterwards, we drove up the mountain and set up camp in an isolated area after realizing Panther Meadows was packed full of a community of New Agers. We ventured around Panther Meadows and took a quick stroll up the mountain. When we returned we saw a group of people participating in a sweat lodge. They openly invited us in, so we jumped on the rare opportunity. After the sweat lodge we returned to camp and set up our fire for the evening. As we were sitting around talking in the middle of the darkness my father’s eyes ignited as he jumped up from his chair, “did you see that?!” He turned on the flashlight and started looking around. Not sure if it was something real or imaginary, but he swore up and down he saw something…or someone lurking around in the darkness near our camp. The nearest person to us was about quite some distance away, and from our camp’s placement nobody could easily access that side of the wilderness without us noticing. Needless to say, it left us a little on the edge.The following year I returned by myself and met up with a buddy of mine who had recently moved up to the area. We drove around and eventually ended up at Pluto’s Cave, a few miles from the base of the mountain. Mount Shasta, being an active volcano, does have remnant lava tubes stretching throughout the vicinity. Pluto’s Cave is just one of these tunnel systems that collapsed in on itself and where people can easily venture inside. Going inside you can easily see how vast these chamber systems can be…and how easily you can get lost inside. On the other side of the mountain there are more isolated sections of wilderness where similar tunnels have been found. From the town of McCloud in the south to the northeastern slope of the mountain people have reported strange occurrences with cars turning off on their own and mist-like clouds extinguishing forest fires in an instant. Needless to say, that area of Mount Shasta is where I’d be willing to place my bets as to an entrance into the mountain, if there really was one leading into the supposed lost colony of Lemurians.Is there any proof of such a place existing inside Mount Shasta? Probably not, but as Fox Mulder put it… I want to believe. Maybe these small grains of truth dating back to indigenous lore gave way to fictitious creations, whether or not for profit, fame or just craziness, either way they have reshaped the living mythology of the area. I’ve read and complied an innumerable amount stories ranging from alien to bigfoot sightings in the vicinity and yet, why do they still continue to this day? The level of fanaticism by some believers have persisted and shows no signs of slowing down. Perhaps it has something to do with the mystiqueness of the mountain, something so mind-blowing and awe inspiring that we substitute our rational mind with newer explanations to lure others in a continuous effect to revisit the mystical experience that we each perceive when we first see it for ourselves.Citations and additional information can be found in book, The Ancients: Investigations into the Lost Civilizations of Lemuria and AtlantisSource : In search for the hidden city under Mount Shasta…

YES. There are major problems with past climate data well recognized by leading scientists. Why is this important? Because the radical anthropogenic global warming AGW hypothesis is all about so called unprecedented temperature increase for a few decades. WHAT IF THE TEMPERTURE DATA FOR GLOBAL WARMING IS FLAWED - THEN DENIERS OF NATURAL VARIATION ARE WRONG. RIGHT?All climate temperature data is secondary and statistical. No thermometer readings here and therefore easy to have doubt about its validity. Many analysis by leading scientists are skeptical about any unprecedented global warming with data to support the doubts.Reconstructing 800 years of summer temperatures in Scotland from tree ringsAuthorsMiloš RydvalNeil J. LoaderBjörn E. GunnarsonDaniel L. DruckenbrodHans W. LinderholmSteven G. MoretonCheryl V. WoodRob WilsonAbstract…NCAIRN suggests that the recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s, although trends before the mid-sixteenth century should be interpreted with some caution due to greater uncertainty. Prominent cold periods were identified from the sixteenth century until the early 1800s—agreeing with the so-called Little Ice Age observed in other tree-ring reconstructions from Europe—with the 1690s identified as the coldest decade in the record. The reconstruction shows a significant cooling response 1 year following volcanic eruptions although this result is sensitive to the datasets used to identify such events. In fact, the extreme cold (and warm) years observed in NCAIRN appear more related to internal forcing of the summer North Atlantic Oscillation.Source: Reconstructing 800 years of summer temperatures in Scotland from tree ringsThe evidence from Japan is clear a new cooling is underway likely related to solar cycles.In the past many areas of the world were not covered by stations or reliable proxy data, particularly the oceans which are the largest area of the planet.GLOBAL CLIMATE OBSERVATION SYSTEMThe 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the global capacity to observe the Earth's climate system is inadequate and is deteriorating worldwide: "Without action to reverse this decline and develop the Global Climate Observation System, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century."See Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999) (Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate)See surfacestations.org (Climate stations physical site survey data)See Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (Anthony Watts, 2009. Heartland Institute)There has clearly been some warming in recent decades, most notably 1979 to 1998. However the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by major station dropout. There has been a clear bias towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude and rural stations. The data suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes, and improper sitting. There is missing data and uncertainties in ocean temperatures. These factors all lead to overestimation of temperatures.See A U.S. ClimateGate? (Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, Jan. 17 '10)See Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg (Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, Jan. 22 '10)"A simple graph by Canadian statistician, Ross McKitrick puts this in picture form. His graph shows that when many stations were selectively and suddenly eliminated from world temperature records, reported global temperature immediately and instantly appeared to step up alarmingly to higher levels-in the 1990's and 2000's.""Temperature measuring stations are placed mostly, 2/3rd, on places where effects of urban heat affects measurements, exhaust of air condition, parking lots, airports jet engines exhausts, increased traffic, concrete grounds etc. cause incorrect measurements, i.e. too high temperatures.""Globally, 12,000 to 14,000 stations during 1970-1989 were reduced to less than 8,000 in year 1991, further to less than 6,000 in year 2000 and to 1,500 now and mainly located at airports. Stations were relocated from previous sites in forests and rural areas to urban sites.These changes reducing rural stations in favour of urban stations is again unethical and biased science work because it is well known urban sites are unnaturally hotter.Heat pollution caused by concrete and paved roads acting like storage heaters or heat banks has created the Urban Heat Island which in turn allows the BBC and Met Office to fake global warming. #BBCbreakfast #BBCnewsDid you know that cities could be 7 degrees F warmer than neighbouring grassy areas, such as farms or parks? #HeatSciencehttps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/eokids/pdf/EOKids_201701_UHI.pdfMeasurements in cold Siberia were eliminated after the collapse of Soviet [Union]. Weather stations were moved from north to south, from high altitudes to low altitudes, all giving higher temperatures.""90% of stations give 1-2°C too high temperatures, i.e. more than IPCC claim for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).During 1950 to 1989 with 12-14,000 stations, average temperature is around 10.0°C and 1990 to 2000 temperature is 11-12°C, average around 11.5°C thus an increase of 1.5°C.90% of all air temperature measurements are taken over land, while land covers only 30% of the planet and the oceans cover 70%."http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm#McKitrick"The supposed gold standard in surface temperature data is that produced by Univ. of East Anglia, the so-called CRUTem3 dataset. There has always been a lingering suspicion among skeptics that some portion of this IPCC official temperature record contains some level of residual spurious warming due to the urban heat island effect. Several published papers over the years have supported that suspicion.""The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is familiar to most people: towns and cities are typically warmer than surrounding rural areas due to the replacement of natural vegetation with manmade structures. If that effect increases over time at thermometer sites, there will be a spurious warming component to regional or global temperature trends computed from the data.""Here I will show based upon unadjusted International Surface Hourly (ISH) data archived at NCDC that the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site.""Depending upon how low in population density one extends the results, the level of spurious warming in the CRUTem3 dataset ranges from 14% to 30% when 3 population density classes are considered, and even 60% with 5 population classes.""I find the above results to be quite compelling evidence for what Anthony Watts, Pat Michaels, Ross McKitrick, et al., have been emphasizing for years: that poor thermometer siting has likely led to spurious warming trends, which has then inflated the official IPCC estimates of warming. These results are roughly consistent with the McKitrick and Michaels (2007) study which suggested as much as 50% of the reported surface warming since 1980 could be spurious."From McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset(March 30th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.)See also Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (.pdf, Ross R. McKitrick and Patrick J. Michaels, 14 December 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465)See also Urban Heat Island Effect (Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Video 06:43 climateclips.com)Obviously there is no single global thermometer and so there is no global temperature just statistical averages of different readings from weather stations.NOTE THE WEBSITE FOR HADLEY CENTRE ADMITS A SINGLE NUMBER IS AN INACCURATE MEASURE OF TEMPERATURE.Even though global warming is expressed as a single figure - the average temperature rise of the whole planet's surface - the effect will not be spread evenly.Higher temperatures, fresh water shortages, higher sea levels and extreme weather events will each affect regions differently.A region's vulnerability will depend not only on the nature and level of climate change, but on the capacity of local systems and populations to adapt to change.AbstractPhysical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature?https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/860c/5a03ace0f1df81a6423b4494dcda4c024ee0.pdfIn addition the data from alarmists like Al Gore is fudged by erasing data about the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age to make the climate seem cooler in the past.Climate alarmists have been guilty of tampering with raw historical data to make their case for an unprecedented hotter climate. In every case they fudge the data to bump up the results showing a much warmer climate today. See –NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 DegreesPosted on March 20, 2018 by tonyhellerNOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.Raw NOAA Data Adjusted NOAA DataThe NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.Essentially all of the evidence for global warming from human emissions of Co2 is based on fake, tampered, cherry picked, or outright fraudulent data.Dr. Vincent Gray discusses and analyzes the science and politics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) meme. Dr. Gray is a renowned scientist and voice of reason; he thoroughly debunks the crass manipulation and politicization of academic climate science. His well-documented book is a valuable contribution to the current debate between global warming activists and human-caused climate change skeptics. AMAZONThe earth does not have a temperature and there is no way that a scientifically acceptable average temperature can currently be derived. It is not possible to know whether the earth is warming or cooling.Then, the climate is constantly changing. No part is ever in equilibrium. The trace gases in the atmosphere are not well mixed and their concentrations change constantly in every place. It is not possible to derive an average concentration for any of them.The genuine science of the study of the climate, built up over many centuries as the discipline of meteorology, has officially established weather forecasting services in most countries.These services now measure many climate properties with a variety of instruments, including satellites. The measurements are used in the most up to date computer models based on currently accepted physics, thermodynamics and statistics, adjusted for local conditions. They provide the only scientifically valid daily forecasts of future weather for every part of the earth. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has not proved to be useful and they do not even bother to measure it.It is simply not possible to overcome these difficulties with honest science, It has therefore been necessary to employ fraud, dishonesty, distortion fabrication, massive public relations, and enormous sums of money in order to claim that they have solved them.Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York, provided a pseudo global temperature technique that has proved useful to the scammers. He admits that there is no such thing as an absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) which he calls elusive.Meteorologists know it is impossible to measure a plausible average surface air temperature. Instead they record the daily maximum and minimum in a protected screen at their weather stations. Today they often also measure at different intervals as well. These are a useful guide to temperature conditions and are plotted in their weather maps.Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 ignored what Hansen had said was impossible. They assigned a constant temperature to each weather station for a whole month and assumed that this temperature applies also to a radius of 1200 km around each weather station.The chosen temperature was the total average maximum and minimum temperatures measured at that station for a each month, the sum of the statistically unacceptable maximum/minimum averages.They considered that could correlate each station figure with the next weather station. But their correlation coefficient was only 0.5 or lower. By subtracting the average from stations in all latitude/longitude boxes from the average in each box they got an annual global temperature anomaly record. There is no mention of the very large inaccuracy figures that should accompany this exercise, or of the varying number and quality of the global weather stations, both currently and over time.The IPCC has used the supposed trend of a measly few decimals of a degree of this concoction to prove that global warming is happening and will inevitably rise dangerously.Now it has broken down. This trend has hardly changed for 18 years while greenhouse gases have supposedly increased. The IPCC has resorted to desperate measures. Instead of annual warming we now have to worry about decadal warming. Efforts are escalated to fudge the figures and publicise a slight rise of hundredths of a degree as evidence of permanent warming.The required treatment of atmospheric carbon dioxide was made by Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla California. The grossly oversimplified climate models demand that atmospheric carbon dioxide is globally constant, only increasing from more human emissions.This was a problem because there exist some 40,000 previous measurements going back to the early 19th century, published in famous peer reviewed journals, sometimes by Nobel Prize-winners. These measurements showed that surface concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are never constant and vary from one place to another, time of day, season, and wind direction.Keeling suppressed this early information. He gave the excuse that he had a slightly different measurement method and he had discovered that there was a background concentration which was almost constant and increased steadily with increased emissions.Keeling based his figures on sites at the Mauna Loa volcano on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, and a site in Antarctica. In order to come close to a globally constant value it was required that most other measurements were made from coastal sites on winds from the ocean where any figures that did not comply with the supposed background are rejected as noise.A difficulty was that the steadily increasing figures over the years did not easily agree with the rather sporadic behaviour of the approved global temperature record.Now, this carbon dioxide scam has broken down. The NASA satellite AIRS system now provides frequent global maps of carbon dioxide concentration showing that it is not well mixed, is highly variable, and tends to be higher in regions of high emissions. The officially sponsored background is no longer relevant. The fact that the supposed warming effect of carbon dioxide is logarithmic with concentration means that increases have little effect in high concentration areas and are most effective over forests and pastures where they are beneficial.The IPCC climate models defy all of the accumulated knowledge of climate science currently practised by meteorologists and replace it with a system of absurdities which has been amazingly successful.Instead of the ever changing climate we know, it is now assumed to be static.All heat exchanges are by radiation. Admittedly the input and output are radiation but everything else in the climate combines all methods of heat exchange, predominantly conduction, convection and latent heat change.The sun is assumed to shine all day and night with equal intensity. The earth is flat and dead where living creatures are impossible except they emit greenhouse gases.All the past climate effects known to meteorology are parameterized and assumed to be constant.There is no hope that such a model could possibly forecast future climate and the IPCC even admits this. They say the models provide projections, never predictions. At the beginning they avoided being proved wrong by projecting only so far ahead that they could be sure nobody living would survive to check.The IPCC has now been running for 25 years and the early reports had to show that the models fitted their temperature record. Now it doesn’t. Also the models could be used to calculate present upper troposphere temperatures, and that does not work either.Atmospheric carbon dioxide has no use in climate measurement.On Dec. 27, 2010 - Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent. Astrophysicist and meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, has a prediction success rate of roughly 85%...better than any of the "man made" climate change activists and proponents in the field of climate science. He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London....He's not your everyday weatherman: the conspicuously displayed photocopy of a check for £2,291 hanging on the wall. Unique among meteorologists, Corbyn bets on his forecasts. Unusual among bettors of any stripe, he wins regularly. The check on the wall is a payout from London bookmaker William Hill on one of their monthly bets. It is said book makers will not take his bets any longer for fear of losing. Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. On his website http://www.weatheraction.com/ he writes about his views, which include the idea the that the world is experiencing cooling. He says proponents of "man made "climate change theory are using "junk" science and that their theory is "rubbish."Taking a long view is essential to understand climate change. It is great folly to think that 1700 years of weak data is of much value for example.Temperatures have been FALLING for 8,000 yearsBy Ray KraftShort term variations, local record hots and colds, don’t mean much, that’s just weather. What matters is long term global trend lines over decades, centuries, millennia, eons, epochs.Expanded record of temperature change since the end of the last glacial periodWhen you use data without the lost climate histories there is no unprecedented warming as the alarmists allege.This is how the 1850 - 2017 Warming compares to Earth's global temperature evolution for the past 83,000,000 years according to the geological record. The temperature time series was compiled from several recently published studies. Do you think modern #ClimateChage is alarming?There is no relevant correlation between past temperature data and Co2.600 Million Years of Temperature and Carbon DioxideA slide from a presentation by Dr. David Archibald in Melbourne on February 5th 2011Left vertical axis: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in parts per million in volumeRight vertical axis: Global Temperature Anomaly in °COver the last 150 million years, geological processes have taken 90% of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.Is carbon dioxide linked to global warming?While the carbon dioxide heating effect is real and related to warming, it is minuscule and logarithmic.The logical reason for temperature increase is the Sun. Predicted solar activity can be used to predict the climate, and the current prediction is for a 24-year cold period similar to that experienced at the beginning of the 19th century.From David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That?, February 12, 2011Did you know that, over the past 70 My, atmos. #CO2 lagged Global Temp. (T) by about 15 My? The lag is determined by shifting the CO2 time series backward until it reaches a maximum correlation with the temp. time series (see graphs). This huge lag implies NO effect of CO2 on T !SINCE the beginning of time, water vapour has been the main greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate.Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCCJapanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe ofscientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division ofNOAA.“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner forPhysics, Ivar Giaever.https://climatism.blog/2018/08/08/hot-tip-man-made-climate-change-is-a-scam/There have been MASSIVE fluctuations in the Earth's 'average' temperature over the past 10,000 years. We survived them- in fact, every major push forward in civilization occurred during warm periods. The polar bears survived them- in fact, 6000 years ago the Arctic was ice-free in the summers for several centuries. The polar bears didn't even notice.The futility of Western de-carbonisationActions in the West in response to the Alarmist Green agenda have already causedgross risks to Western energy securitysubstantially increased costs for private energy usersdamaged the economics of all Western manufacturing industries.Western industrial companies are bound to seek more congenial energy / business environments, with laxer attitudes towards CO2 emissions to maintain the performance of their businesses. So the futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany and throughout the Western world becomes clear.An estimate of the additional 60 year lifetime cost commitment of some €2.0 trillion that has already been committed for the installation of Weather Dependent Renewables in Europe is given athttps://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/lifetime-costs-for-renewable-energy-in-europe/https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/usa-weather-dependent-renewable-energy-to-2016-performance-and-costings/According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power alone, not including other renewable investments, could only ever reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100, if at all.http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hoursIn addition in their recent paper the prestigious French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA have clearly said:“The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade”http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_Global_Warming_Summary_2015_09.pdfAnd more recently Bjorn Lomborg has produced evidence that the total effect of any agreement in the terms proposed in Paris could only control future warming in 2100 by less than 0.2°C.http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/09/lomborg-impact-of-current-climate-proposals/#more-20393https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/bp-data-analysis-global-co2-emissions-1965-2017/CONCLUSIONThe IPCC climate science is shoddy and not by accident as the intent was to make a case no matter how weak against the current worldwide dependence on efficient and cheap fossil fuel energy. They resurrected without any observational or peer research a discarded hypothesis about greenhouse gases (minute - near zero amounts of human emissions of C02) overheating the planet. Ignoring that the hypothesis was refuted in 1909 by the laboratory research of Dr. R.W. Wood, American Physicist they manipulated data to make it seem to fit the hypothsis. For example, they supported Michael Mann’s devious scrubbing of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age climate history to make history fit the old theory. They used flawed computer models to predict catastrophe in 100 years of climate change unless Co2 is reduced to scare the public when their own science reports said such predictions are ‘IMPOSSIBLE.’'The IPCC wrote –“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “The Scientific Basis,” Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report, 774, http://www.grids.no/climate/ipc_tar/ assessed June 2007. To advance this political agenda the IPCC has fastened on to a discarded hypothesis from the 1800s refuted in 1909 that greenhouse gases (95% water vapor) and minute amounts of Co2 near zero at 0.1% of the atmosphere are making the planet too hot. The IPCC ignores how essential and wholly beneficial non-toxic Co2 is. They ignore an abundance of peer reviewed research showing that solar radiation, cloud formation, ocean currents, sunspots and the earth’s orbital movements and other natural variables far exceed any human impact on the vast climate.Dr. Endenhofer admits the IPCC is not in the climate science business and this must explain the shoddy science of the IPCC Reports projections all fail when measured against reality."'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change". Home | Daily Mail Online. April 23, 2012.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary’. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”This summary is dishonest and shows the bias and shadow agenda of the IPCC.