Before The Public Service Commission Of Wisconsin Petition: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!Absolutely! Let me just show you based on facts and numbers!Military and Overseas Voting: Donald Trump’s trade war with China has already victimized many American farmers and businesses, but a new group of citizens could soon pay an unexpected price: Voters who cast ballots from overseas—including members of the military—may have to pay $60 or more to send their ballots back to the U.S. in order to be counted.​What does overseas voting have to do with trade policy? The Trump administration is seeking to punish China by withdrawing from the 192-member Universal Postal Union, which for a century and a half has set international postal rates. The UPU allows China to ship packages to the U.S. at a discounted rate, a policy designed to help developing countries that Trump wants to see changed.To get its way, the administration has placed the U.S. on track to leave the UPU in October, just a month before critical elections in many states. If that withdrawal comes to pass, normal mail service could be disrupted for Americans living abroad. As Tierney Sneed noted in a detailed analysis in June, such voters already “face tight—and sometimes impossible—turnaround times between when they receive ballots and when they must send them out to meet their state’s absentee voting deadlines.”Shipping services like FedEx or UPS offer the only alternative, but they’re prohibitively expensive. According to Jared Dearing, the executive director of Kentucky’s Board of Elections, it could cost “upward of $60” just to send in a ballot, prices that would be paid by both civilians and service members living overseas.Making matters worse, Sneed now reports that many election officials are preparing to send out absentee ballots just before the UPU meets in late September to discuss Trump’s demands. These administrators therefore don’t know whether “to tell overseas voters to proceed as usual or to expect new issues” in terms of the cost and time it will take to send back ballots.Turnout is already quite low among Americans abroad: A study published last year by the Federal Voting Assistance Program found that just 7% of voting-age civilians participated in the 2016 elections. The expense and uncertainty surrounding Trump’s conflict with the UPU are only likely to send those numbers even lower.And while overseas voters may appear to be unintentional victims rather than deliberate targets of Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to negotiations with foreign nations, Democrats are likely to suffer more. Overseas civilian voters are some of the strongest Democratic constituencies, and they well outnumber overseas military voters.” That fact can only make it more likely that Trump proceeds on his current course.REDISTRICTING● Michigan: In their ongoing efforts to preserve their ability to gerrymander, Republicans have now filed a second lawsuit in federal court arguing that Michigan's new independent redistricting commission is unconstitutional.This latest suit contends that the process for selecting commissioners violates the GOP's First Amendment rights to freedom of association by preventing political parties from picking their own commissioners. Republicans claim that, since Michigan has no party registration, Democrats could try to apply for the commission as Republicans, even though the process allows each party’s legislative leaders to strike a certain number of applicants from the pool of prospective commissioners.This newest lawsuit follows another one that Republicans filed last month, which also targeted the commissioner selection process by arguing that it's unconstitutional to prevent political candidates, officeholders, lobbyists, and their relatives from serving on the commission. Both lawsuits seek to stop the voter-approved commission from taking effect, and this latest challenge is asking for a preliminary injunction that would leave redistricting in the hands of the Republican-run legislature while litigation remains ongoing.As we wrote when Republicans filed their first lawsuit, it's unclear just exactly what they hope to gain from this litigation in the near term, since even if they succeed in striking down the commission and returning redistricting to lawmakers, they'd still be facing a veto of any new gerrymanders by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. That would likely yield maps drawn by a court, which would adhere to nonpartisan standards similar to those the commission would rely on.However, it could be that Republicans plan a future lawsuit seeking to remove the governor's veto power over new maps, though it's unclear what mechanism such a frontal assault on the separation of powers would rely on. Their counterparts in Wisconsin nonetheless appear to be plotting just such a maneuver, creating a new front for reformers to monitor.● North Carolina: State Rep. Kelly Alexander and fellow Democrats have filed a lawsuit in state court arguing that Republicans' gerrymandering of the districts used to elect trial court judges in Mecklenburg County violates the U.S. and state constitutions, along with the federal Voting Rights Act.Mecklenburg County is a Democratic stronghold that's home to Charlotte and more than 1 million residents. Last year, Republicans in the state legislature changed Mecklenburg's procedures for judicial elections from a countywide system to one in which the county is split into separate judicial districts, even though all of the elected judges still retain countywide jurisdiction.The GOP's new law gerrymandered the districts in an attempt to elect more white Republicans in place of several black Democrats. Plaintiffs contend that this violated the U.S. Constitution's provisions guaranteeing equal protection and freedom of association, as well as the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act for discriminating against black voters. They furthermore charge that the GOP's judicial redistricting violated the state constitution by creating a new court system without a constitutional amendment. Consequently, they're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the new law.● OH Supreme Court: On Monday, The Columbus Dispatch reported that former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and state Judge John O'Donnell will run as Democrats for the two Ohio Supreme Court seats up for election in November 2020, which could have a major impact on redistricting. Ohio Supreme Court candidates run in party primaries but face off in a nonpartisan general election. Brunner indicated that she plans to run against Republican Justice Judith French, and O'Donnell will challenge GOP Justice Sharon Kennedy.Brunner had previously won the 2006 election for secretary of state but later lost the 2010 primary for U.S. Senate. However, she has since been elected to the state's 10th District Court of Appeals, serving since 2014. O'Donnell has been running for some time and is making his third attempt at Ohio's high court: He previously lost by just 50.3-49.7 against GOP Justice Patrick Fisher in 2016 even as Trump was winning Ohio by 51-43. In 2014, he lost to French by a wider 56-44 as the Republican wave hit Ohio especially hard, although that was still a narrower margin than every Democrat running statewide for partisan office.If Democrats win both of these 2020 races, they would gain a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court for the first time since the 1980s. Such a majority would have profound consequences for the upcoming post-2020 redistricting cycle. As I’ve explained in detail, Ohio's new systems for congressional and legislative redistricting passed since the last round of redistricting still give the Republicans who dominate state government the power to gerrymander again. However, a Democratic state court majority could use state constitutional protections tostrike down unfair maps in a way that may be insulated from federal review.ELECTION SECURITY● Georgia: The plaintiffs challenging Georgia's paperless voting machines have now asked the federal court that just banned those machines for use in 2020 to also prohibit the state from deploying new voting machines that print a paper ballot with a bar code record, which voters can't verify themselves. Instead, the plaintiffs are urging the court to require paper ballots filled in with pens, which would be fed into optical scanners.FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT● Illinois: Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed a new law that aims to ensure everyone in jail who is awaiting trial and has not been convicted of a felony can exercise their right to vote. In Cook County, home to Chicago and roughly 3.5 million eligible voters, this law will require the county jail to operate an in-person polling place. Jails in every other county will be required to provide absentee ballots for eligible detainees.Illinois disenfranchises incarcerated citizens who have been convicted of a felony, but it automatically restores their voting rights upon release from prison. However, many individuals don't realize they regain their right to vote upon release, so this law also seeks to remedy that problem by requiring officials to inform citizens upon releasethat they have regained the right to vote and to provide them with a voter registration form.VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTING ACCESS● New Jersey: Democratic state senators have scheduled a legislative session for next week to debate legislation to fix New Jersey's vote-by-mail law to ensure that voters who cast an absentee ballot in 2017 or 2018 will automatically receive a new mail ballot for this November's state Assembly elections, and Assembly Democrats may soon do the same.Democrats are mounting this effort after the secretary of state's office decided that voters who requested absentee ballots in those elections would have to make new requests for this year. Supporters of the new mail voting system say that decision runs contrary to the intent of the law, which was passed last year. Jonathan Lai at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that an estimated 172,000 voters requested mail ballots in 2017 or 2018 but wouldn't automatically receive a ballot this year without a new request unless lawmakers act.Writing at the New Jersey Globe, David Wildstein reports that Democrats are adamant about fixing the vote-by-mail law because of the major absentee ballot campaign operations they mounted in 2017 and 2018, which led to absentee votes heavily favoring the party in those elections. Since the Assembly elections are at the top of the ticket this year (neither the state Senate nor the governor is up for election), turnout would typically be very low. However, voters would likely be more inclined to cast a ballot if they automatically get one in the mail.● Ohio: Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state senators from both parties have introduced a new bill that would make it easier to register to vote at Ohio's Bureau of Motor Vehicles. While the bill would not establish a true automatic voter registration system, it would let eligible voters who are conducting business with the BMV register for the first time or to update an existing registrations electronically rather than with cumbersome paper forms.VOTER SUPPRESSION● North Carolina: State House Republicans have given preliminary approval to a billthat would use lists of people excused from jury duty to try to find noncitizens who are on the voter registration rolls, but reporting from local NBC affiliate WRAL indicates that such an effort could risk removing eligible voters thanks to widespread false matches. Furthermore, WRAL reports that the exact process for removing flagged registrants isn't spelled out in the bill and would be left up to election officials, raising further questions about the risks of removing eligible voters, such as recently naturalized citizens.Republicans passed a procedural hurdle last week with the support of a handful of Democrats, but unclear if they could muster enough support to override a potential veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, since the GOP doesn't have enough votes to do so on its own.● Voter Suppression: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal by the right-wing American Civil Rights Union and conservative activist J. Christian Adams, who sought to overturn a 2018 district court ruling that blocked Adams' ham-fisted plot to get populous Broward County, Florida, to aggressively prune its voter rolls in a way that would have ensnared eligible voters.Adams is one of the foremost Republican peddlers of lies about voter fraud and is also a former member of Trump's bogus voter fraud commission. As explained last year, his courtroom defeat only came as the culmination of his years-long effort to bully local governments into purging eligible voters through legal action. Adams had largely been successful because he’d mostly targeted poor, rural counties with predominantly black populations that had little choice but to settle out of court to avoid costly litigation, but populous Broward was able to fight back—and win.This isn't the only legal setback that Adams has faced this year. In July, Adams and another group he's affiliated with called the Public Interest Legal Foundation settled a lawsuit brought by registered voters in Virginia whom Adams had defamed and intimidated by falsely claiming they were not citizens and exposing their personal information online.SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS● Secretaries of State: The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State has unveiled the races it plans to target next year, which will determine who runs elections in several states. Democrats hope to flip Republican-held offices in Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia, and they aim to defend Democratic incumbents in North Carolina and Vermont. (In North Carolina, elections are administered by an appointee of the governor rather than the secretary of state.)The Pacific Northwest in particular offers top pickup opportunities for Democrats. Oregon will host an open-seat race after Republican Bev Clarno agreed not to seek a full term in exchange for getting appointed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown following the death of Republican incumbent Dennis Richardson earlier this year. (Oregon law requires appointees to be members of the same party as the deceased office-holder.) Meanwhile, in Washington, Democrats are trying to unseat Republican Secretary of State Kim Wyman.The position of secretary of state is singularly important for guaranteeing fair elections and equal access to the ballot box. Missouri's Republican incumbent Jay Ashcroft recently demonstrated just how vital it is to have a pro-democracy secretary of state after he crafted deceptive ballot language for several proposed ballot initiatives that would expand voting access. Supporters of those measures responded with a lawsuit earlier this month to block Ashcroft's misleading language and substitute in fairer descriptions.BALLOT MEASURES● Colorado: On Tuesday, a panel of judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision in a 2-1 ruling that upheld Colorado's requirement that those seeking to put amendments to the state constitution on the ballot must gather signatures from at least 2% of registered voters in each of the 35 state Senate districts.Even though some districts have up to 60% more registered voters than others, the judges held that the provision doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution's "one person, one vote" principle because the districts were drawn to be roughly equal in terms of total population based on the 2010 census. It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek a further appeal, which could include petitioning the entire 10th Circuit to review the case or appealing to the Supreme Court.Prior to 2016, initiatives only needed signatures equivalent to 5% of the votes cast statewide in the last election for secretary of state. However, a measure passed that year, supported by business interests and then-Gov. John Hickenlooper, established the state's new geographic distribution requirement and also increased the threshold for passage from 50% to 55%.But even though it was backed by Hickenlooper, a Democrat who is now running for Senate, the new distribution requirement makes it disproportionately harder to place progressive initiatives on the ballot than conservative ones. That's because liberals must gather petition signatures in conservative rural districts where Democratic voters are spread out across significant distances, making it costly and time-consuming to canvass for petition signers.By contrast, while conservatives would need to gather signatures in left-leaning strongholds like Denver, districts in urban areas are much more densely populated. Therefore, even though Republicans may be few in number in major cities, they're much easier to reach because they live more closely together.ELECTORAL COLLEGE● Colorado: In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that rejected a challenge by a Colorado elector for Hillary Clinton who was removed from office and replaced after he tried to vote for John Kasich.The majority held that it was unconstitutional for the state of Colorado, which has a law on the books that allows for the replacement of electors who don't vote for the candidate by whom they were nominated, to remove elector Michael Baca, who had unsuccessfully attempted to convince Republican electors to write in Kasich's name in order to deny Donald Trump an electoral majority and throw the election to the House.The 10th Circuit's ruling, however, may not stand on appeal. As election law expert Derek Muller notes, this decision failed to take notice of a similar case out of Minnesota that the 8th Circuit rejected last year, deeming the issue moot. Should the Colorado case be reviewed by the entire 10th Circuit or the Supreme Court, Muller says "it could well be tossed on procedural grounds" much like the Minnesota challenge.But if the Colorado ruling were to be upheld by the Supreme Court and set a national precedent, it would unbind every elector from any state law prohibiting faithless electors. Such an outcome could alter the result of a close Electoral College vote, adding uncertainty as to whether a candidate who appeared to have won a narrow victory would in fact prevail in the Electoral College. While faithless electors have been infrequent in modern history, removing any limits could embolden electors to defect and consequently risk chaos if electors were to randomly overturn the expected results…Edit: I would like on Susan Normand’s request add this link: Many Native IDs Won't Be Accepted At North Dakota Polling Places.The Supreme Court declined to overturn North Dakota's controversial voter ID law, which requires residents to show identification with a current street address. A P.O. box does not qualify.Many Native American reservations, however, do not use physical street addresses. Native Americans are also overrepresented in the homeless population, according to the Urban Institute. As a result, Native residents often use P.O. boxes for their mailing addresses and may rely on tribal identification that doesn't list an address.Those IDs used to be accepted at polling places — including in this year's primary election — but will not be valid for the general election. And that decision became final less than a month before Election Day, after years of confusing court battles and alterations to the requirements.

By November many of us will have already voted. Months before. About 40 of our 50 states have something that many of them call “early voting’. With our patchwork system,with every state operating as a small independent country, this before the election date voting, has more paths than a National Park.Some are starting to vote in mid September. Some start in early October. A few have voting by mail for all. And there are as many colors as there are in the rainbow.The real world results are that Trump has to get in control of the Virus, get everyone back to work and school, and set things back to a near normal by Labor Day. That’s just a tad longer than 30 days. The greatest sustained effort by our very best people in our history would be amazed to be able to work that magic in just a month.Those governing us now have been sitting on a bill from the House for 80 days and now have let the deadline go without acting on their renewal of help for those needing money for rent and food in yes August. That money can’t reach all those in need this week, or next, but perhaps by the 15th or 20th. The landlord may be chill enough to wait for the money. But those in need of food will have a losing battle with their empty stomachs.Worse the GOP is now at war with itself in Congress as they do not have a relief plan that they can all agree upon. Sounds to me like the same national health care plan that they were to come up with to complete with Obama Care. That baby is still not born and we have been waiting for 10 years.Biden is the other head ache band that has not been found to be universally dangerous. He has been on the political scene for forty years. And in that time we have come to know him, and have general found him to be good, but not great. Even members of the other party have little to say against him. They like Joe, and can picture themselves voting for him. Finding even one bus load of Democrats who have no trouble with voting for Trump would be a struggle. Which is why we can look at astonishment at Texas, and Florida, Alaska, and Arizona as they seem to turn less red and more blue every time we look. What we do not see anywhere is a once blue state in 2016 that has drifted into the red. What we do see is once deep red suburbia districts turning deep blue. It seems that even the in the bag votes of those women is not so sure at all. The recent decision to pull down all the ads has hung a lantern on the fact that Trump has found that so far all his ways and means to pull down Biden have not worked.The Biden side has mastered the laid back style on a chill level of cool that seems both minimal and crazy as a fox. While Joe says little and does less, the Lincoln Project has a killer ad out nearly everyday. While they throw bombs, Joe smiles and speaks his truth in a calm and reasonable way.I believe that the Democrats have figured out what Trump has not. This election is all about the Virus. While Trump has failed every day since January. Biden has presented better ideas and has yet to step into the ring with the invisible killer. With 70% of us having given this administrator a F on this test. So with just 30% who are good with Trump’s work. In the next 30, 60, or 90 days, more pain is coming, and in greater numbers in those Mid West heartland areas that had thought that this Virus was just a coastal city thing. A storm is just something you read about in the paper, until a tree trunk has taken out your car while it was parked in the driveway in front of your house. Then it’s a major tragedy, and the killer storm has just been made real for you.While those who will never for for Trump are not ever going to reverse that. Those who thought that they might, are now questioning where that path has lead them.This awakening has also changed hearts and minds in the Senate, House, and Governor's mansions in many a red state. The alarm is ringing and they are scrambling toward the life boats. they have no plan, or any leader to follow. It would be amusing if the cost was not in blood and treasure. It would be sad if they had not been Trump’s chief enablers in crime. But as it is a extinction event for the once Grand Olde Party.The way for Trump to win, is only if he can steal and fake the election, and those ways and means are not in public view.********************************Everything below this line is from The National Conference of State Legislatures, established in 1975, is a "nonpartisan public officials’ association composed of sitting state legislators" from the states, territories and commonwealths of the United States.You can click into their web page and here NCSL IN D.C.Or read what I copied and pasted over below.TABLE OF CONTENTSEarly Voting State LawsAll Mail-In StatesEarly Voting in U.S. TerritoriesAdditional ResourcesCONTACTNCSL Elections TeamState Laws Governing Early Voting8/2/2019This page contains information on statutory requirements relating to the start and end of in-person early voting (including states with all-mail elections) for the 39 states and the District of Columbia that offer this option. Two additional states, Virginia and Delaware, have enacted early voting but it will not be in place until 2020 and 2022, respectively. Nine states, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, do not offer pre-Election Day in-person voting options.When statutes address locations, days and hours, we have included this information as well. Information provided here is generally for statewide general elections. Early voting periods for municipal or primary elections may be different.The time period for early voting varies from state to state:The date on which early voting begins may be as early as 45 days before the election, or as late as the Friday before the election. The average starting time for early voting is 22 days before the election.Early voting typically ends just a few days before Election Day.Early voting periods range in length from four days to 45 days; the average length is 19 days.Of the states that allow early in-person voting, 24 and the District of Columbia allow some weekend early voting. Saturday: 20 states, plus the District of Columbia provide for voting on Saturday. Four additional states (California, Kansas, Vermont and Massachusetts) leave it up to county clerks who may choose to allow Saturday voting. Delaware and Virginia will also include Saturday voting when the laws go into effect. Sunday: Five states (Alaska, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Ohio) allow for Sunday voting. Five states (California, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Massachusetts) leave it up to county clerks who may choose to be open on Sundays. Florida mandates early voting must begin, including Sunday, the 10th day and end the third day prior to the election for state and federal elections. Local election officials also have the discretion to allow early voting the Sunday prior.This page is not intended to provide voters with information on when to vote, but rather to provide a state-by-state comparison of policies. To find specific dates and times for your voting district check with your local elections office. This page has information on how to contact your local elections office.For further information on pre-Election Day voting, visit NCSL's Web page Absentee and Early Voting, or contact the Early Voting Information Center.The box allows you to conduct a full text search or type the state name.State Laws Governing Early VotingStateEarly Voting BeginsEarly Voting EndsLocationsHours and DaysAlaskaAS §15.20.064, 15.20.045 and 6 AAC 25.50015 days before electionDay of electionElections supervisors’ officesOther locations as designated by election directorVaries by locationArizonaARS §16-541, 16-54226 days before electionFriday before electionRecorder’s officeAny other locations in the county the recorder deems necessaryNot specifiedArkansasAR Code §7-5-41815 days before election5 p.m. Monday before electionOffices of county clerkOther locations as determined by county board of election commissionersNot specifiedCaliforniaElec. Code §3001, 301829 days before electionDay before electionCounty election officials’ officesSatellite locations as determined by county election officialsVaries from county to countyDelawareDel. Code Title 15, Chapter 54(Note: goes into effect in 2022)At least 10 days before an electionSunday before electionDesignated by state election commissionerAt least one per county and one additional in the City of WilmingtonAt least 8 hours per day. Polling sites must open at 7 a.m. on at least 5 days of early voting. Closing time is 7 p.m.Includes the Saturday and Sunday before the electionDistrict of ColumbiaDC ST § 1-1001.097 days before election, but in-person absentee voting is available 15 days beforeSaturday before election for early voting, day before election for in-person absenteeCouncil ChambersOne satellite location in each ward8:30 a.m.-7 p.m.Sunday excludedFloridaFla. Stat. §101.65710 days before electionMay be offered 11 to 15 days before an election that contains state and federal races, at the discretion of the elections supervisor3 days before electionMay end 2 days before an election that contains state and federal races, at the discretion of the elections supervisorMain or branch offices of elections supervisorsOther sites designated by the elections supervisor (locations must provide all voters in that area with equal opportunity to vote)No less than 8 or more than 12 hours per dayElection supervisors may choose to provide additional days of early voting, including weekendsGeorgiaGA Code §21-2-380 and §21-2-382Fourth Monday prior to a primary or election; as soon as possible prior to a runoffFriday immediately prior to a primary, election or runoffBoard of registrars’ officesOther sites as designated by boards of registrars (must be a government building generally accessible to the public)Normal business hours on weekdays9 a.m.-4 p.m. on the second Saturday prior to primary or electionElection officials may provide for early voting beyond regular business hoursHawaiiHRS §15-710 working days before electionSaturday before electionClerks’ officesOther sites designated by clerksHours determined by county clerks.IdahoID Code §34-1006 and 34-1002Third Monday before election (in-person absentee)5 p.m., Friday before electionDetermined by county clerkNot specifiedIllinois10 ILCS 5/19A-15 and 10 ILCS 5/19A-2040th day before election for temporary polling locations and 15th day before election for permanent locationsEnd of the day before election dayAn election authority may establish permanent and temporary polling places for early voting at locations throughout the election authority’s jurisdiction, including but not limited to:Municipal clerk’s officeTownship clerk’s officeRoad district clerk’s officeCounty or local public agency officeEarly voting locations must be provided at public universitiesPermanent early voting locations must remain open from the fifteenth day before an election during the hours of 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. or 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on weekdays.Beginning eight days before an election, they must remain open 8:30 a.m.-7 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m.-Noon on Saturdays and holidays, and 10 a.m.-4 p.m. on Sundays.Permanent early voting locations must stay open at least 8 hours on any holiday and a total of at least 14 hours on the final weekend during the early voting period.Election authorities may decide the days and hours for temporary early voting locations, beginning the fortieth day before an election.IndianaInd. Code §3-11-4-1 and 3-11-10-2628 days before election (in-person absentee)Noon, day before electionOffice of circuit court clerkCounty election board may adopt a resolution to authorize the circuit court clerk to establish satellite offices for early votingThe office of the circuit court clerk must permit in-person absentee voting for at least seven hours on each of the two Saturdays preceding election day, but a county with fewer than 20,000 voters may reduce this to a minimum of four hours on each of the two Saturdays preceding election dayIowaIA Code §53.10 and 53.11(b)29 days before election (in-person absentee)5 p.m., day before electionCommissioners’ officesSatellite locations may be established by commissionerSatellite location must be established upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 100 eligible electors requesting a specific locationA satellite station established by petition must be open at least one day for a minimum of six hoursKansasKSA §25-1119, 25-1122a, 25-112320 days before election OR Tuesday before election (varies by county)Noon, day before electionOffices of county election officersCounty election officers may designate satellite locationsNot specifiedLouisianaLRS 18:1303 and 130914 days before election7 days before electionRegistrars’ officesRegistrar may provide alternate location in the courthouse or a public building in the immediate vicinity thereofOne branch office of the registrar, as long as it is in a public building8:30 a.m.-6 p.m., Monday through SaturdayHolidays excludedMaineTitle 21-A §753B(2) and 753-B(8)In-person absentee voting available as soon as absentee ballots are ready (30-45 days before election)Three business days before election, unless the voter has an acceptable excuse.Municipal clerks’ officesDuring regular business hours on days when clerks’ offices are openMarylandElection Law §10-301.1Second Thursday before a primary or general electionThursday before electionEstablished by State Board of Elections in collaboration with local boardsNumber required depends on county population and ranges from one to five per county8 a.m.-8 p.m. in a presidential election10 a.m.-8 p.m. each day in all other electionsMichiganConstitution Article II, Section 4 (as amended by Ballot Proposal 3 in 2018)In-person absentee voting during the 40 days before an electionDay before electionAt least one locationDuring regular business hours and for at least eight hours during the Saturday and/or Sunday immediately prior to the election.Local election officials have the authority to make in-person absentee voting available for additional times and places beyond what is required.MassachussetsM.G.L.A. 54 §25B(only available for state biennial elections)Eleven days before electionSecond business day before election (Friday before)City hall election office and town clerk’s officeAlternate or additional locations may be provided at the discrection of the city or town registrarRegular business hours. City or town clerks may provide additional hours (including weekends) at their discretion.MinnesotaM.S.A. §203B.081, 203B.08546 days before election (in-person absentee)5 p.m. the day before electionElections offices or any other location designated by county auditorMonday through Friday regular business hours.10 a.m.-3 p.m. on Saturday before election; 10 a.m.-5 p.m. on the day before Election Day.MontanaM.C.A. §13-13-20530 days before election (in-person absentee)Day before electionElections officesNot specifiedNebraskaN.R.S. §32-808, §32-938, 32-94230 days before each an election.Election DayCounty clerk or election commissioners’ officesNot specifiedNevadaN.R.S. §293.356 et seq.Third Saturday preceding electionFriday before electionPermanent places for early voting as designated by county clerkBranch polling places for early voting as designated by county clerkThere are special requirements for early voting sites on Native American reservations.Until Dec. 31, 2019: 8 a.m.-6 p.m., Monday through Friday of the first and second weeks. The Clerk may conduct early voting until 8 p.m. during the second week. At least four hours between 10 a.m.-6 p.m. on any Saturday that falls during the period. Sundays and holidays are excepted, but a clerk may include them as early voting days.Beginning Jan. 1, 2020: Monday through Friday for at least 8 hours a day, to be established by the clerk. Any Saturday that falls within the early voting period for at least 4 hours, to be established by the clerk. A clerk may choose to offer Sunday hours as well.New JerseyN.J.S.A.§19:63-645 days before election (in-person absentee)3 p.m. the day before electionOffice of the county clerkNot specifiedNew MexicoN.M.S.A. §1-6-5(G)Third Saturday before electionSaturday before electionClerks’ offices and:Class A counties with more than 200,000 registered voters: clerk must establish at least 12 alternate locationsClass A counties with 200,000 or fewer registered voters: clerk must establish at least 4 alternate locationsNon-class A counties with more than 10,000 registered voters: clerk must establish at least one alternate locationNon-class A counties with 10,000 or fewer registered voters: clerk’s office and alternate locations as designated by clerkHours are set by the clerk, and must begin no earlier than 7 a.m. and end no later than 9 p.m.Each alternate location must be open for at least eight consecutive hours on each day of early voting, and may be closed on Sundays and MondaysNew YorkElection Law Title VI, §8-60010th day before electionSecond day before an electionAt least one early voting location for every full increment of 50,000 registered voters in each county, but not more than seven are required. Counties with fewer than 50,000 registered voters shall have at least one early voting location. Counties and the city of New York may choose to establish more than the minimum required. Early voting sites shall be located so that voters have adequate and equitable access.Open for at least eight hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. each weekday during the early voting period.At least one early voting site shall be open until 8 p.m. on at least two weekdays in each calendar week during the early voting period.Open for at least five hours between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on each Saturday, Sunday and legal holiday during the early voting period.Boards of elections may establish a greater number of hours for voting during the early voting period beyond what is required.North CarolinaN.C.G.S.A. §163A-1300 to §163A-1304Third Wednesday before election7 p.m. on the last Friday before electionOffice of county board of electionsThe county board of elections may choose to offer additional locations, subject to approval by the state board of elections. All sites must be open during the same days and hours.Monday through Friday during regular business hours at the county board of elections. A county board may conduct early voting on weekends.If the county board of elections opens early voting sites on Saturdays or Sundays during the early voting period, then all sites shall be open for the same number of hours uniformly throughout the county on those days.There are exceptions for counties with islands that contain no bridges to the mainland.North DakotaNDCC §16.1-07-1515 days before electionDay before electionAt the discretion of county auditorThe county auditor chooses and publishes the hoursOhioNote: Uniform statewide schedule is set by the secretary of state: 2018 Voting Schedule here28 days before election (in-person absentee)2 p.m. Monday before electionMain office of board of electionsBoard may conduct voting at a branch office only under certain conditions8 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Friday, with some extended evening hours in the week prior to the election8 a.m.-4 p.m. on Saturday1-5 p.m. on the Sunday before Election DayOklahoma§26-14-115.4Thursday preceding an election (in-person absentee)2 p.m. on the Saturday before electionAt a location designated by the county election board. For counties of more than 25,000 registered voters or with an area of more than 1,500 sq. miles, more than one location may be designated8 a.m.-6 p.m. on Friday and Monday8 a.m.-2 p.m. on SaturdaySouth DakotaS.D.C.L. §12-19-2.145 days before election (in-person absentee)5 p.m. the day before the electionOffice of the person in charge of electionsRegular office hoursTennesseeTenn. Code §2-6-102(a)(1)20 days before electionFive days before election (seven days for a presidential preference primary)County election commission officeOffices must be open a minimum of three consecutive hours on weekdays and Saturdays between 8 a.m.-6 p.m. during the early voting periodOn at least three days, offices must be open between 4:30-7 p.m., and on at least one Saturday from 8 a.m.-4 p.m.TexasTex. Elec. Code §85.001and 85.00217 days before electionFour days prior to electionIn a room in the offices of the county clerk, or elsewhere as determined by the clerkEach county has one main early voting centerDuring business hours on weekdays unless:Fewer than 1,000 voters, in which case three hours per day, orMore than 100,000 voters, in which case 12 hours per day during the last weekUtahUtah Code §20A-3-60114 days before electionFriday before election, though an election official may choose to extend the early voting period to the day before the electionIn government offices as determined by election officerAt least four days per week, and on the last day of the EV period.The election officer may elect to conduct early voting on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday.VermontTit. 17, §2531 thru 253745 days before election (in-person absentee)5 p.m. day before electionOffices of town clerksClerks may make “mobile polling stations” availableNot specifiedVirginiaVA Code Ann. § 24.2-701.1(Note: goes into effect in 2020)The second Saturday before the election for all registered voters (45 days before for those with a valid excuse)5 p.m. Saturday before electionOffice of the general registrar. Additional locations in public buildings may be provided at local discretion.Regular business hours.A minimum of eight hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on the two Saturdays before the election.West VirginiaW.V. Code §3-3-3And SB 58113 days before electionThree days before electionCourthouse or the annex next to the courthouseCounty commission may designate additional areas, subject to requirements prescribed by the Secretary of StateMust be open 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on Saturdays through EV periodWisconsinWis. Code §6.86(1)(b)14 days preceding the election (in-person absentee)Sunday preceding the electionClerks’ officesA municipality shall specify the hours.WyomingWyo. Stat. §22-9-105 and 12540 days before election (in-person absentee)Day before electionCounty clerks’ officesCourthouse or other public buildingMust be open regular hours on normal business daysAdditionally, three states have all-mail voting. Every eligible voter is sent a ballot that can be returned by mail, or dropped off at a voter center or similar location during the early voting period.States With All Mail VotingStateEarly Voting BeginsEarly Voting EndsLocationsHours and DaysColoradoC.R.S. §1-5-102Voter service and polling centers must be open 15 days before an election.Day of election.Determined by county election officials.Every day but Sunday during the early voting period. Normal business hours (but may be expanded by county board of commissioners).Oregon§254.470, Secretary of State RulesDropsites must open the Friday before an election, but may open as soon as ballots are available (18 days before).Day of election.Election offices or other staffed locations (libraries, city halls, etc.) or outdoor mailboxes (drive-by or walking traffic).Normal business hours.WashingtonRCW §29A.40.160Vote centers must be open 18 days before an election.8 p.m. on day of election.Election offices or other locations designated by the county auditor.Normal business hours.At least one U.S. territory, the U.S. Virgin Islands, has provisions for earlyState Laws Governing Early Voting8/2/2019This page contains information on statutory requirements relating to the start and end of in-person early voting (including states with all-mail elections) for the 39 states and the District of Columbia that offer this option. Two additional states, Virginia and Delaware, have enacted early voting but it will not be in place until 2020 and 2022, respectively. Nine states, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, do not offer pre-Election Day in-person voting options.When statutes address locations, days and hours, we have included this information as well. Information provided here is generally for statewide general elections. Early voting periods for municipal or primary elections may be different.For further information on pre-Election Day voting, visit NCSL's Web page Absentee and Early Voting, or contact the Early Voting Information Center.The box allows you to conduct a full text search or type the state name.l 8 p.m. during the second week. At least four hours between 10 a.m.-6 p.m. on any Saturday that falls during the period. Sundays and holidays are excepted, but a clerk may include them as early voting days.Beginning Jan. 1, 2020: Monday through Friday for at least 8 hours a day, to be established by the clerk. Any Saturday that falls within the early voting period for at least 4 hours, to be established by the clerk. A clerk may choose to offer Sunday hours as well.

No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory.The work of the UN IPCC admitted openly is less focused on the environment and real climate science , rather it is more a project in economics and wealth distribution with the fear of global warming the cat’s paw to gain supporters.The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability. This is critical to seen that the radical view of human caused warming is not settled science. The full story well documented in Bernie Lewin’s recent book.Why this history of the IPCC machinations is so important. E. Calvin BeisnerCompelling historyReviewed in the United States on January 18, 2020Anyone who thinks the science behind global warming alarmism it's simple, objective, empirically sound science in action needs to read this book. The political and financial forces driving toward alarmist conclusions about climate change have been powerful for generations, and that have resulted in scientific claims that go far beyond the evidence. Those in turn have led to government policies that go far beyond not only the science but also the economics, and threaten to undermine the prospects uplifting the world's remaining poor out of their poverty and suffering.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.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 reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.Environment blogClimate changeFriday, December 19, 201497 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.Popular Technology.netThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand upConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrongRichard Tol: 'There is disagreement on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate.' Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP Photograph: Frank Augstein/APRichard TolFri 6 Jun 2014 15.59 BST971The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard TolDana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.Nuccitelli’s pieces are two of a series of articles published in the Guardian impugning my character and my work. Nuccitelli falsely accuses me of journal shopping, a despicable practice.The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of SussexCO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindleSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ MythPosted: June 10, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry |It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game | CFACT“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictionsthat provide something very useful.”– Dr David Frame,Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.Via Clear Energy Alliance :97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton) | ClimatismNew lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.Articles“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEDECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLONFor those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELSDr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWNSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCESIndur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]SPEAKING OUTA system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.Lennart BengtssonAny person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Michael CrichtonAnother name I have yet to add to the list:Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here."The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse