Common Core Writing Strand The Research Paper Research: Fill & Download for Free

List of Interesting Business Topics for Research PaperList of Interesting Business Topics for Research Paper...Topics for Business Ethics Research Paper. This field allow students to choose a myriad of topics for their business ethics research paper. You can select something around morality, duties, integrity, business behavior, as well as any other matter that is bad or good for the society, the company, or its employees.Best Examples of Business Research Topics for 2020Best Examples of Business Research Topics for 2020Best Business Research Paper TopicsExamples of Business-Related Research TopicsThe Bottom LineYour choice of the best topic for your business paper should depend on the field you are interested in. Additionally, your topic should be engaging and related to your study program. It should also enable you to conduct extensive research and come up with facts to back up your argument. What’s more, the best business topics for research papers grab the readers’ attention. This explains why many students get nervous or struggle when required to choose topics for their business papers. Nevertheless, students c…See more on thesisrush.comTop 100 Research Topics for ABM Strand Students [Upd. 2020]Top 100 Research Topics for ABM Strand Students [Upd. 2020]...2019-01-05 · We picked a handful of information technology-related topics that make good research topics for college students. The problem of formalizing human skills and capabilities in artificial intelligence objects. At the crossroads of biology and computer science: the promise of computational neuroscience.Top 70 Interesting Sociology Essay Topics & Questions for 20202020-08-16Cause and Effect Essay Topics: 150 Really Good Ideas for 20202020-02-1330 Best Ecology Topis for Essay & Research Paper [Upd. 2020]2019-03-01See more resultsPEOPLE ALSO ASKWhat is a Bachelor of Business Administration degree?Bachelor of Business Administration or BBA is one of the more popular bachelor degrees that students can opt for upon completion of their schooling. This is a four-year program that provides students with fundamental education related to management and business principles.Why should you opt for a BCom instead of a BBA?http://www.ucanwest.ca/blog/education-careers-tips/why-shoul…See all results for this questionWhat are the research topics in Business Administration?Research Topics in Business Administration 1 The Effect of Advertisement on Consumer Behavior 2 Impact of Wages on Employee Productivity 3 Strategic Management and Productivity 4 Staff Motivation and Impact on Productivity 5 Management and Measuring of Employee RetentionList of Interesting Business Topics for Research Paperhttp://research-paper-writing-services.net/popular-business-topi…See all results for this questionWhat is the syllabus of the BBA?The BBA syllabus broadly consists of subjects like Business Organisation, Business Communication, Fundamentals of Accounting, Business Mathematics, Management Concepts & Practices, Organisational Behavior, Managerial Economics, Management Accounting, Business Environment, Business Statics, Marketing Management, etc.BBA (Bachelor of Business Administration) - Shiksha.comhttp://www.shiksha.com/bba-bachelor-of-business-administrati…See all results for this questionWhat is the difference between BBA and BCom?Unlike BBA, where the subjects are restricted to business administration and management, BCom has a broader perspective and teaches students a wide range of subjects. This program is designed in such a way to allow students to develop managerial and analytical skills, financial literacy, business acumen and leadership skills.Why should you opt for a BCom instead of a BBA?http://www.ucanwest.ca/blog/education-careers-tips/why-shoul…See all results for this questionFeedbackBusiness Administration Project Topics & Materials PDF ...Business Administration Project Topics & Materials PDF Download [2020]...Free Project Topics For Business AdministrationFinal Year Project Materials For Business AdministrationList of Business Administration Project Topics and MaterialsHire Us to Write Your Approved TopicHow to Download Project Materials on This PageConclusionOn this page we have a list of free project topics for business administration and management below and also, we formulate new Business administration project topics ideas for students in their final year. e.g 1. Ond Business Administration Project Topics 2. HND Business Administration Topics 3. Pgd Management Project Topics 4. BSc Business Administration Project Topics 5. MBA Project Topics 6. Ph.D. Management Project Topics ATTENTION: SEE ALL FREE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROJECT TOPIC…See more on eduprojecttopics.comPublished: 2020-08-24BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT …BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT TOPICS, RESEARCH WORKS AND MATERIALS...BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Undergraduate Project Topics, Research Works and Materials, Largest Undergraduate Projects Repository, Research Works and Materials. Download Undergraduate Projects Topics and Materials Accounting, Economics, Education ... THE IMPACT OF TELEVISION COMMERCIALS ON PURCHASING HABIT OF STUDENTS BADM85598: ...Bachelor of Business Administration - WikipediaBachelor of Business Administration - WikipediaCore topics: Accounting; Business; Financial management; Cost & management accounting; Human resource management; Management information systems; Marketing; Operations management; Organizational behavior; Quantitative techniques (business statistics, financial mathematics, sometimes operations research) Strategic management; Common specializations AccountingWhat are some research topics for BBA students? - QuoraWhat are some research topics for BBA students?Topics for BBA students. Some of Research Topics. 1.A study on the perceptual relationship between overtime & output of sectors. 2. Accounting concepts and Information used indecision making by managers in banking organizations. 3. Age and Gender discrimination in the recruitment of entry level accountants.What are interesting topics for a research paper for a ...2020-06-30What is the best topic for BBA finance project?2019-01-29What are some innovative topics for final year ...2018-10-03What topic of the business administration bachelor ...2017-04-26See more resultsBachelor of Business Administration - Cape Breton ...https://www.cbu.ca/.../programs/bachelor-of-business-administration-bbaWhat Skills Will I Gain from This Program?Why Study at CBU?Sample CoursesPossible Career PathsExperiential Learning OpportunitiesBusiness building skillsTeam building skillsDeep understanding of businessSee more on cbu.caBBA (Bachelor of Business Administration) - Shiksha.comAll About BBA - Full Form, Courses, Subjects, Syllabus, Careers & ScopeThe BBA syllabus broadly consists of subjects like Business Organisation, Business Communication, Fundamentals of Accounting, Business Mathematics, Management Concepts & Practices, Organisational Behavior, Managerial Economics, Management Accounting, Business Environment, Business Statics, Marketing Management, etc.University of Waterloo - A Better Business Programhttps://uwaterloo.ca/ba degree/waterlooAdEarn a Bachelor of Arts degree and get skills to bolster your career. Stand out with a Bachelor of Arts degree designed with input from business insiders.Find the best deals on uwaterloo.caCo-op Available · 29 Honours Majors · Small First-Year Courses · Student SupportsBachelor of Arts degree · Request a Brochure · Explore Majors · Chat OnlineBachelor Business - Search Bachelor Businesshttps://www.zapmeta.ws/bachelor businessAdFind Bachelor Business. Search Faster, Better & Smarter!The Complete Overview · Web, Images & Video · 100+ Million Visitors · Information 24/7Types: pdf, doc, ppt, xls, txtTop 10 answers · Explore high quality info · Multi Search · Search & Find Now

Human made climate change is an unproven hypothesis of ‘thought experiment’ without physical observations or testing. It is a thought experiment dependent on climate history showing that today’s warming is catastrophic and unusual compared with the past, but this is untrue. The current warming is not unprecedented.The public have been deceived by false attacks on C02 plant food by political leaders like Al Gore and Barack Obama labelling it ‘pollution’ and exaggerating the potential of Greenhouse gas heating. The science has been distorted by the UN IPCC with fudged data and narrow views ignoring the fact that trace amounts of fossil fuel C02 emissions could not control the climate. They amount to no more than ‘0.117 % of the atmosphere.’A must view 3 minute video to see graphically how de minimus our carbon dioxide imprint really is.Australian Rice TaxMY OUTLINEA. THE CONSENSUS CRUMBLES TWICEB. CLIMATE HISTORY CONTRADICTS HYPOTHESISC. PREDICTIONS FAILD. SEA LEVELS ‘ABSOLUTELY STABLE’E. GHG BASED ON ‘MERITLESS CONJECTURES’F. COOLING OVER THE NEXT DECADESH. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NORMAL NOT MAN-MADEI. RESEARCH CRUSHES ANY MAN-MADE LINK TO ARCTIC CLIMATEJ. UN-IPCC ROLE IS WEALTH DISTRIBUTION NOT CLIMATE SCIENCEK. THE LAST WORDA. THE CONSENSUS CRUMBLES TWICEThe prevailing theory on the earth’s temperature is that heat from the sun enters the atmosphere, and then greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and water vapor trap part of that energy by preventing it from escaping back into space.That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box. The first consensus that the theory was invalid developed early and that consensus remained until around 1990 when the UN IPCC wanted a lever for their social justice mission to globally redistribute wealth. A climate hypothesis that attacks fossil fuel emissions became their sword for justice no matter the science behind the thesis was very weak.Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/#7jYc7wCyrK0iMVw8.99Famous scientist from around the world do not support the resurrected Greenhouse forced warming radical view espoused by the UN IPCC and Al Gore.“As far as I’m concerned, all this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.” – Robert W. FelixWarming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come toknow what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCCJapanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physicalchemist.“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner forPhysics, Ivar Giaever.Our planet has enjoyed 10 warm periods during the past 10,000 yearsFEB 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PMPeer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming CrisisIt is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”February 12, 2018 by Robert TaylorB. CLIMATE HISTORY CONTRADICTS HYPOTHESISThere is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called global warming (or “climate change”).Look at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.Civilizations flourished during those warm periods, and collapsed when they ended.Did humans cause the Minoan warm period of of about 3,300 years ago?..Did humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?Did humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?What about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?Now look at where we are today (at the far right side of the graph).If the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.As far as I’m concerned, all this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.______________________The above chart is based on data from GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2). GISP2 drilled cores into the Greenland ice more than 3000 meters (almost 2 miles) deep, allowing scientists to study climate variability for the past 125,000 years.I found the above chart in this great video by Rod Martin, Jr.“Top 10 Climate Lies Exposed”Our planet has enjoyed 10 warm periods during the past 10,000 yearsReal data about the earth’s climate history is the silver bullet killing the radical anthropogenic alarmist claims. The data proves the climate has been much warmer before the industrial revolution contradicting the false claim that recently there has been unprecedented warming.You cannot trust the data from the IPCC and other alarmists because they fudged or tampered with the data to show more warming when this is happening. The worst example is Michael Mann’s infamous and impugned hockey stick graph rubbing out the climate history of Medieval Warming globally and the Little Ice Age globally.C. PREDICTIONS FAILPerhaps the most cogent demolition of the CAGW thought experiment is in the failure of its predictive value. The scientists and politicians who deny natural climate variation as the full explanation for current warming have failed to prove their radical hypothesis with any accuracy. All of their projections or predictions have failed to happen. My comment published in a major journal, PHYSICS TODAY summarizes the failures below.I subscribe to the same reasons as the famous Swedish scientist who attacks AGW.Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist AgendaPosted: February 7, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: AlarmismNils-Axel Mörnervia NoTricksZone By P Gosselin on4. February 2018 (Climatism bolds & links added) :D. SEA LEVELS ‘ABSOLUTELY STABLE’World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.Sea level hijacked by an activist agendaIn the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.IPCC is falseThe Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.“Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”Sea level “absolutely stable”Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.“Because they have a political agenda”Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea levelThe Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:“Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”Junk surveys produce “nonsense”When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.On the subject of publishing research results:“Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.“In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”F. Cooling over the next decadesMörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.“Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”Global Warming Hoax VIDEO, Best explanation of climate history disproving climate alarmism.G. IPCC MODELS USED FUDGED AND INCOMPLETE DATAThey are cartoons.PHYSICS TODAY22 Sep 2014 in Commentary & ReviewsPhysicist Steve Koonin impeaches scientists’ climate consensusIn a long Wall Street Journal commentary, the veteran technoscience leader declares the science not settled.Steven T. CorneliussenIn January, when Steven E. Koonin welcomed participants to the Climate Change Statement Review Workshop that he was chairing for the American Physical Society, he made a point of acknowledging “experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.” Participating, and fitting that description, were climate scientists Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy. Now Koonin has published a high-visibility commentary in the Wall Street Journal under the headline “Climate science is not settled.” In the paper version, the editors italicized the word not.The WSJ identifies Koonin as* President Obama’s former Energy Department undersecretary for science,* director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University,* a past professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, and* a past chief scientist for BP, “where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.”It can be added that Koonin has a long past in investigating and pronouncing on physics questions of special public importance. A quarter century ago, the New York Times article“Physicists debunk claim of a new kind of fusion” included this: “Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of ‘the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann.’ The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a moment before bursting into applause.”Koonin’s 2000-word WSJ commentary dominates the front page of the Saturday Review section, with a jump to an interior page. The editors signposted it in several ways. The subhead says, “Climate change is real and affected by human activity, writes a former top science official of the Obama administration. But we are very far from having the knowledge needed to make good policy.” A call-out line in boldface on the front page says, “Our best climate models still fail to explain the actual climate data.” Another, after the jump to p. C2, says, “The discussion should not be about ‘denying’ or ‘believing’ the science.” A photo caption on the jump page says, in part, “Today’s best estimate of climate sensitivity is no more certain than it was 30 years ago.” A caption on the front page says, “While Arctic ice has been shrinking, Antarctic sea ice is at a record high.” (Although that photo plainly shows only the extraction of an ice-core sample, the caption adds, “Above, scientists measure the sea level in Antarctica.”)Here are excerpts from Koonin’s commentary:* The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided.* The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. . . . Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?”* Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. . . . Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.* The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.* We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.* Work to resolve . . . shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research. Yet a public official reading only the IPCC’s “Summary for Policy Makers” would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies.* While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it.* We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. . . . The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.* Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is “settled” (or is a “hoax”) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on.* Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about “believing” or “denying” the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.MY PUBLISHES COMMENTJames Matkin • 2 hours agoIt is basic to the scientific method that science is never settled. As the famous physicist Richard Feynman often opined, 'Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.' Also books on logic urge, "A Cautious Approach with an Open Mind. The scientific attitude is also a cautious one. .. Don't make a broader claim than the evidence warrants, and don't reject strongly held beliefs unless the evidence is very strong. In short, don't be wildly speculative." LOGICAL REASONING by Bradley Dowden. The strongly held conventional view of climate change has been that natural variation from solar radiation, ocean currents, clouds, earth's orbit and many other unstoppable forces are driving the climate with chaotic, nonlinear randomness, not the new radical idea of trace amounts of human made carbon dioxide. Yes, this means the fixation by the IPCC and alarmist crusaders on C02 from fossil fuels is too narrow and too much a denial of conventional wisdom without more testing, particularly when all alarmist projections fail. This means Koonin is right to urge, "Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is “settled” (or is a “hoax”) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on." I am ashamed of the lack of scientific uncertaity evident in the climate change debates so far.E. GHG BASED ON ‘MERITLESS CONJECTURES’The hypothesis of fossil fuel emissions making the planet too warm is not based on any physical observation. It is only a 'thought experiment' and all predictions posited have failed to happen, especially moderate winters without snow, islands sinking when they are rising, sea levels rising many feet to bury coastal cities like New York, polar bears becoming extinct, etc. None of these dire outcomes is happening. For example here is a relevant headline about winter temperatures -COLDEST WINTER IN DECADE CAUSES ENERGY SHORTAGES ACROSS SOUTHEAST EUROPEDate: 09/02/17The failed hypothesis is based on an idea about heat forcing from Greenhouse gases including trace amounts of C02. It depends on unprecedented global warming, which is not happening. Climate history shows current warming is not unprecedented and for the past couple of decades especially true.See - "2017: 150 Graphs, 122 Scientific Papers In the last 12 months, 150 graphs from 122 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published that undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years.Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time.And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.The following (partial) list has been organized by geographical region.http://notrickszone.com/201...Further research has dubbed the Greenhouse gas heat forcing thought experiment, 'meritless conjectures.'Greenhouse EffectBased On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “though experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.http://www.scirp.org/journa...Guest • 3 years ago…One common theme I notice about cagw supporters, they all claim the science is settled, but they absolutely refuse to have any rational discussion at all on the validity of that claim, and resort to names such as "flat earthers" or "deniers". Clearly they are biased, concerned with the outcome of any such discussion, because were they not they would happily engage in discussions and debates, verbal or written, and assisting others to reproduce their results. That is the essence of the scientific method!This is becoming obvious to many, such as yourself, Dr. Koonin. Again, I give you a resounding thank you for writing what you see as the truth. For the sake of science, I hope that many other pillars to the scientific community will speak out about what they see.http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/The American Association of State Climatologists Unlike geologists, astrophysists, chemists and ecologists climate science is the full time primary interest and research of climatologists. Therefore, when the climatologist science organization denies thee man-made unprecedented global warming theory this is very relevant.American Association of State ClimatologistsState Climatologists are Skeptical of Global Warming“Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration's point of view. Far from being a "done deal," the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier. I have encouraged the other state climatologists to speak up on this issue and intend to be a spokesman myself (see, for example, July 25 1998 Science News). It's interesting to me that the tactics of the "advocates" seems to be to 1) call the other side names ("pseudo-scientists") and 2) declare the debate over ("the vast majority of credible scientists believe..."). I'm grateful for those who are running top-notch Web sites (SEPP, junkscience, John Daly, Doug Hoyt, Pat Michaels, etc.) to keep the dialogue open and enable us to share relevant information and scientific data (and also provide encouragement).”George Taylor, State ClimatologistOregon Climate Service, 316 Strand Hall, Oregon State UniversityCorvallis OR 97331-2209http://www.ocs.orst.eduJapan Society of Energy and Resources was founded in 1980. (1791 MEMBERS)It is an academic society to promote the science and technology concerning energy and resources, and thus to facilitate cooperation among industry, academia and governmental sectors for coping with the problems in this field.“Subcomittee of Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC – says “recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity”By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK (h/t) from WUWT reader Ric WermeExclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.SummaryThree of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue…Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”apan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-madeClimate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report”Anthony Watts / February 25, 200925 Feb 2009 at 12:23, Andrew OrlowskiKey Passages TranslatedWhat is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?Shunichi Akasofu[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)Introductory discussion.Point 1.1: Global Warming has haltedGlobal mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.American Institute of Professional Geologists: your local geoscientistsDecember 13, 2013“American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) national president Ronald Wallace and Tennessee Section president Todd McFarland (Nashville office of AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc.) visited Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) on December 5th for an AIPG section meeting. ..“From an education perspective, one of the differences between AIPG and two of the other major geoscience societies, the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, is that a substantial number of AIPG members have expressed skepticism about the extent to which human activity is to blame for global warming during the last 150 years. In contrast, the Geological Society of America (position statement) and the American Geophysical Union (position statement) follow the lead of most climate scientists in attributing most of the warming to human activity.”“I do not know a single geologist who believes that (global warming ) is a man-made phenonomon.”Peter Sciaky Senate testimony, Oct. 29, 2007, Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 153. Pt. 20YES, assuming there are 18 science organization who follow Al Gore’s flawed inconvenient truth about the climate change they are wrong. There is no consensus about the UN IPCC hypothesis of man-made global warming increasingly leading scientists discredit the idea as unproven, non falsifiable pseudo-science.“Earth’s climate has always changed. 12,000 years ago most of North America was covered in over a mile of ice and the oceans were 400 feet lower! America has been warming ever since. We will continue to warm or we could go back into our current ice age.Ice ages are bad because food doesn’t grow well and billions of Humans will either starve or freeze to death. Warming is good because we all live and prosper.There is absolutely no evidence that Humans cause global warming. In fact, only the stars know if it will get hotter or colder and it is all up to that one star we call our sun.”H. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NORMAL NOT MAN-MADE“This is an important summary of the truth about Global Warming (aka Climate Change). The hoax is not that the climate is changing or that the globe is in a warming trend. The hoax is not that the increased energy production is causing man-made carbon dioxide levels to rise dramatically in the last 150 years and will continue as a result of improved prosperity in the third world. The hoax is not that water vapor and carbon dioxide are the end product of power plants and automobiles.
No, the hoax is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer. And the biggest hoax is that carbon dioxide is not causing the temperature to increase. Water vapor, which is 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide and regulated by the oceans, is the true and only real greenhouse gas, without which the whole earth would be covered in ice. Thus, all efforts to curb carbon dioxide production are a total waste of capital. “ “ The Two Hoaxes of Climate Change By Tomas de Paulis January 23, 2017 “ The Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide Hoax: Easy to Read Proof That Climate Change Is Normal and Not Man-Made, Alan Fensin - Amazon.comThe science community was duped by Al Gore and his inconvenient truth from misleading data. When Al Gore published his political manifesto about man-made global warming wining a nobel prize he created a band wagon effect everywhere. There was a kind of strange SOCIAL euphoria because Gore’s revelation about the climate crisis had a big upside, particularly for the political left. If carbon dioxide emissions in Green House Gases causing a catastrophic global warming then ending fossil fuel energy could also end fossil fuel pollution. Who could oppose such a marvellous positive anti- pollution fix including the development of shining wind and solar renewables? Not some 18 major science organizations who loved the impact of such a crusade. Notwithstanding, far more organizations are opposed see below. Yes, this caused a kind of virtuous conspiracy by scientists and politicians in favour of ridding the world of fossil fuel pollution in the name of climate change safety.I. RESEARCH CRUSHES ANY MAN-MADE LINK TO ARCTIC CLIMATEFEAR-MONGERING BY CLIMATE ALARMISTS LIKE AL GORE HAS FOCUSED ON PREDICTIONS THAT THE ARCTIC AND GLACIERS ARE MELTING TOO FAST AND THIS WILL BE DISASTROUS FOR COASTAL CITIES. THESE PREDICTIONS ARE FALSE AND NEW RESEARCH PROVES THAT - .20 New Papers Crush Claims Of A Man-Made Link To Arctic Climate Change, Glacier Retreat, Sea IceBy Kenneth Richard on 8. February 2018Anthropogenic Influence On Arctic Climate‘Too Small To Be Detected’Source: Haine, 2016The evidence compiled in scientific papers continues to rapidly accumulate.An anthropogenic signal in the regional Arctic climate is still too small to be detected.Temperature, glacier melt, and sea ice changes are all well within the range of natural variation for the Arctic region. The changes that do occur have identifiable origins that are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations or human emissions.Below is a brief summary of some of the latest research that underscores the lack of connection between anthropogenic influences and climate-related changes in the Arctic.Arctic Temperature And Ice Retreat Mechanisms1. Arctic Warming Since 1990s ‘Dominated By Natural Variability’ (NAO)Orsi et al., 2017The recent warming trend in North Greenland … We find that δ 18O [temperature/climate proxy] has been increasing over the past 30 years, and that the decade 1996-2005 is the second highest decade in the 287-year record (Figure 4). The highest δ 18O values were found in 1928, which is also an extreme year in GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores, and in a coastal South Greenland composite [Vinther et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2015], but the decadal average (1926-1935) is not statistically different from the decade (2002-2011).The surface warming trend has been principally attributed to sea ice retreat and associated heat fluxes from the ocean [Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a, b], to a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) since 1990, increasing warm air advection on the West Coast of Greenland and Eastern Canada [Hanna et al., 2012; Fettweis et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2014], and to an increase in the Greenland Blocking Index [Hanna et al., 2013]. These latter mechanisms could be dominated by natural variability rather than forced response to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases [Fettweis et al., 2013; Screen et al., 2014].2. Arctic Ice Melt Since 1995 Due To Natural Cloud Cover Decrease, NAOHofer et al., 2017Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet … The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an accelerating rate since the mid-1990s. … We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. Model output indicates that the GrIS summer melt increases by 27 ± 13 gigatons (Gt) per percent reduction in summer cloud cover, principally because of the impact of increased shortwave radiation over the low albedo ablation zone.The observed reduction in cloud cover is strongly correlated with a state shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation promoting anticyclonic conditions in summer and suggests that the enhanced surface mass loss from the GrIS is driven by synoptic-scale changes in Arctic-wide atmospheric circulation. … Th[e] strong correlation between summertime NAO index and the MAR-based cloud cover could be used to forecast whether the observed reduction in cloud cover during summer, and the associated increase in GrIS melt, is likely to continue.3. Geothermal Heat Flux From ‘All Over’ Greenland The ‘Primary Process’ Behind Temperature ChangesRysgaard et al., 2018The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is losing mass at an increasing rate due to surface melt and flow acceleration in outlet glaciers. … Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior. Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland. Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS. A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream. … Geothermal springs with source water temperatures above 0 °C have been found all over Greenland, especially around Disko Island in West Greenland, where several thousands of such springs have been identified. … Therefore, we assume that vertical turbulent mixing and GHF [geothermal heat flux] are the primary processes behind the observed salinity and temperature change.4. Recent Winter Arctic Warming Driven By Planetary Scale WavesBaggett and Lee, 2017The dynamical mechanisms that lead to wintertime Arctic warming during the planetary-scale wave (PSW) and synoptic-scale wave (SSW) life cycles are identified by performing a composite analysis of ERA-Interim reanalysis data. The PSW life cycle is preceded by localized tropical convection over the Western Pacific. Upon reaching the mid-latitudes, the PSWs amplify as they undergo baroclinic conversion and constructively interfere with the climatological stationary waves. The PSWs [planetary scale waves] flux large quantities of sensible and latent heat into the Arctic which produces a regionally enhanced greenhouse effect that increases downward IR and warms the Arctic two-meter temperature. The SSW life cycle is also capable of increasing downward IR and warming the Arctic two-meter temperature, but the greatest warming is accomplished in the subset of SSW events with the most amplified PSWs. Consequently, during both the PSW and SSW life cycles, wintertime Arctic warming arises from the amplification of the PSWs [planetary scale waves].http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/08/20-new-papers-crush-claims-of-a-man-made-link-to-arctic-climate-change-glacier-retreat-sea-ice/#sthash.eDRqp6ix.sH7Z37zR.dpbsJ. UN-IPCC IS ABOUT WEALTH DISTRIBUTION NOT CLIMATE SCIENCETHE VIRTUOUS CONSPIRACY TO CURTAIL FOSSIL FUEL POLLUTIONThe end became more important than the analysis of the problem or climate theory and the “enlightened conspiracy” became fully partisan. It became political not scientific. Democrats against Republicans with Gore and Obama making coal the bulls eye or major villain of the fossil fuels.The IPCC scientists admit there primary purpose is global wealth redistribution not climate science and environmental policy. The mission is anti-market based economics.“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of CanadaOttmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”That Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/K. THE LAST WORDPatrick MooreReplying to @Cheshire__red @bradschrag and47 othersFirst it was a hypothesis, then it was a hoax, now it is a scam like scientology. But it dies hard because it the perfect unfalsifiable apocalypse. You might like my new essay "Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom"

Spread all over the world,Jews are almost every ethnicity that exists. Genetic evidence again links Jews to their ancient tribeBy Judy Siegel(November 20) - Genetic evidence continues to provide additional proof to the claims that the Jewish people are descended from a common ancient Israelite father: Despite being separated for over 1,000 years, Sephardi Jews of North African origin are genetically indistinguishable from their brethren from Iraq, according to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. They also proved that Sephardi Jews are very close genetically to the Jews of Kurdistan, and only slight differences exist between these two groups and Ashkenazi Jews from Europe. These conclusions are reached in an article published recently in the American Journal of Human Genetics and written by Prof. Ariella Oppenheim of the Hebrew University (HU) and Hadassah-University Hospital in Ein Kerem. Others involved are German doctoral student Almut Nebel, Dr. Marina Faerman of HU, Dr. Dvora Filon of Hadassah-University Hospital, and other colleagues from Germany and India. The researchers conducted blood tests of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Kurdish Jews and examined their Y chromosomes, which are carried only by males. They then compared them with those of various Arab groups - Palestinians, Beduins, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese - as well as to non-Arab populations from Transcaucasia - Turks, Armenians and Moslem Kurds. The study is based on 526 Y chromosomes typed by the Israeli team and additional data on 1,321 individuals from 12 populations. The typing of the Jewish groups was performed at the National Genome Center at HU's Silberman Institute of Life Sciences. The Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was one of the few centers in which the transition from hunting-gathering to permanent settlement and agriculture took place. Genetic studies suggest that migrating Neolithic farmers dispersed their technological innovations and domesticated animals from the Middle East towards Europe, North Africa and Southwest Asia. Studies of Y chromosomes have become powerful tools for the investigation of the genetic history of males, since these chromosomes are transmitted from fathers to sons. Surprisingly, the study shows a closer genetic affinity by Jews to the non-Jewish, non-Arab populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to Arabs. These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history, and indicate that the Jews are direct descendants of the early Middle Eastern core populations, which later divided into distinct ethnic groups speaking different languages. Previous investigations by the HU researchers suggested a common origin for Jewish and non-Jewish populations living in the Middle East. The current study refines and delineates that connection. It is believed that the majority of today's Jews - not including converts and non-Jews with whom Jews intermarried - descended from the ancient Israelis that lived in the historic Land of Israel until the destruction of the Second Temple and their dispersal into the Diaspora. The researchers say that a genetic analysis of the chromosomes of Jews from various countries show that there was practically no genetic intermixing between them and the host populations among which they were scattered during their dispersion - whether in Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal or North Africa. A particularly intriguing case illustrating this is that of the Kurdish Jews, said to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel who were exiled in 723 BCE. to the area known today as Kurdistan, located in Northern Iraq, Iran and Eastern Turkey. They continued to live there as a separate entity until their immigration to Israel in the 1950s. The Kurdish Jews of today show a much greater affinity to their fellow Jews elsewhere than to the Kurdish Moslems. �Tracing Mideast Roots Back to Issac and IshmaelStudy of Y Chromosome Suggests a Common Ancestry for Jews and Arabspublished in The Forward,May 19,2000.Ivan OranskyThe biblical story of Abraham's sons,Issac and Ishmael,was given a boost earlier this month by the publication of a study that suggests a common ancestry of Jews and Arabs.The study also found the degree of intermarriage by the Askenazi Jewish population over the past 2000 years to be remarkably small.The study,published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Univercity of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer and colleagues from Italy,Israel,England and America,refutes some earlier studies which suggested that modern Jews were mainly descendants of converts-paticularly the Turkish Khazars--with high rates of intermarriage.What makes the findings unique is that they are based on an analysis of the Y chromosome,which determines gender and is passed from father to son.Analysis of the Y chromosome is a relatively new technique that has been used to trace the ancestry of the Kohanim,the high priests of Temple days.Scientists can tell by the number of Y chromosome mutations-most which have no functional effect-how closely related groups are.Based on the simularities of the modern-day Y chromosomes of 1371 men from 29 groups including Askenazi,Roman,Yeminite and North African Jews,and Palastinians,Syrians,Russians and Zulus,the scientists found the intermarriage rate over the last 2000 years to be less than one in 200.That rate is less than one one-hundreth the estimated rate----about 50%---among modern Jews.The dirrector of the human genetics program at the New York Univercity School of Medicine and a co-author of the paper,Harry Ostrer,told the Forward that while the results do not validate the story of Abraham,Sarah,Issac and Ismael,the story provides a usefull allegory for the roots of Jews and Arabs."We're the children of a discrete number of founders who lived in the Middle East,where these Y chromosomes originated and became concentrated.",Dr.Ostrer said.A professor of medicine and genetics at the Univercity of Washington who has studied Jewish genetics for more than 40 years,Dr,Arno Motulsky,called attention to the irony implied by the study's findings."Much of the strife that is occuring in this world has nothing to do with genetics",said Dr.Motulsky,"Jews and Arabs share alot of genetic history."Dr.Motulsky,who was not involved with the study,said that the results suggest that genes from non-Jewish males have not entered the Jewish population to any great extent."Perhaps there's a reason for that law saying Judaism is determined by the mother,"Dr,Hammer said."Perhaps it was to avoid Jewish men from taking non-Jewish women,the result which can be seen in the study's findings."The study could raise important questions about who is a Jew.For example,the results suggest that Ethiopian Jews,thought to be long seperated from other Jewish groups,may be more closely related to North African non-Jews than to other Jews.Follow up studies are already being planned.Dr.Ostrer is hoping to collect genetic information from 1000 Askenazi Jews to study migrational patterns across Europe.Dr,Hammer said he will study the DNA for mitrochondria,which supply energy to cells and have thier own genes,Study of mitrochondrial DNA strands,which are several thousand times shorter than than the Y chromosome.This will shed light onto the rate than which women intermarried into Jewish communities,since these genes are strictly passed by the mother.Then you have ones that claim to be Israel that are not like the Ephraimite Cult,Chicago’s Black Hebrews that are a church that decided they were Israel,and British Israelism..Ephraimites or Ephra might nots? Gentile theft of Israelite Identity.By Hezakiah Sammi Levinson on Saturday, November 9, 2013 at 7:48pmThe Ephramite Cult are Gentiles claiming to be the remains of the Northern Kingdom of Ephraim or Israel based on they feel it is Domenet so.no er til salgs proof of linages, no ancient traditions such as you find among the people in Syria and other countries that still have these traditional legends and stories dating back thousands of years.The "Ephramites" base their beliefs almost completely along the lines of British Israelism, keeping their Christian beliefs in Jesus, denigration of Judaism,and thinking all Jews are Judah.Even some of the biggest Jewish supporters of the idea that prophesy about the reunion of Judah and Ephraim are showing http://disappointment.To quote Yair Davidy of Brit AM,"First of all what really are the so-called Ephraimites? Recent developments have suggested that they may not be so interested in spreading knowledge of physical origin from Israel especially when the ancestry of concrete groups is specified.If such is the case they are in effect Christian enthusiasts who at best have replaced Replacement Theology with fraternalism. Unlike advocates of Replacement Theory they may not say they are the True Israel who have replaced the Jews as the Chosen People. They rather claim to be brothers of the Jews by virtue of religious inspiration. Some of them are very pro-Jewish but others are not and seem anti-Jewish and wallowing in Pseudo-Karaite notions and sinister Conspiracy Theories as well as in some cases having fanatical missionary convictions.We say the Lost Ten Tribes are mainly amongst Western Peoples BUT NOT ALL these peoples are Israelites.So a certain overlap concerning Israelite Ancestry between us AND the Ephraimites exists. Many of them however may not like us that much and may not really be interested in what we have to say.In other words the Ephraimites have been presenting themselves to us, and those like us, as one thing while really being more of something else."Ephraimites or Ephra I am nots? (originally in the Cleveland Jewish News)Imagine the outrage if a practicing Jew were to don a Roman collar, assume the title “priest,” and open his own “Catholic church,” interpreting its holidays and symbols however he liked, says Rabbi Tovia Singer, talk-show host, and founder and national director of Outreach Judaism.But that is exactly what “Hebraic Roots” adherents (also known as “Israelites” or “Ephraimites,” among other names) do. These groups are led by self-taught individuals who use the title “rabbi” and/or “congregational leader,” as well as “synagogue” (complete with Hebrew names like Beth HaKavod) for their churches.These gentiles in Jewish clothing actually claim to be the “true Israelites” in direct, biological descendants of the lost tribe of Ephraim. Of course there are no DNA or blood tests to confirm this unsubstantiated claim.Angus Wootten, one of the movement’s grandaddies, explains in his book Restoring Israel’s Kingdom how someone can find out if he or she is a biological member of the tribe of Ephraim: You simply “have a ‘conviction,’ a knowing that we know.”While this David Koresh-sounding theology appears ridiculous to both Jews and the vast majority of Christians, the sobering fact is that their numbers are growing constantly. From their websites and links, it would appear there are about 30 Ephraim-style groups in Ohio alone, although it’s hard to get an exact count because they use so many names n Ephraimites, Hebraic Roots Christians, Lost Tribes, Northern Kingdom, Israelites, House of Israel, Messianic Christians, and House of Joseph..Rabbi Melvin Granatstein of Green Road Synagogue says there are all kinds of ersatz groups like these. “Catholics have to follow certain scriptural interpretation, but Protestants can pick up a Bible and interpret on their own,” he explains. “Some (Protestants) are very respectable, but others just focus on the parts of scripture they like, and the Bible can have very diverse interpretations.”Saying you’re from a lost tribe has a certain “romantic appeal,” continues Granatstein. “The neat thing about claiming to be part of a lost tribe is, if it’s lost, who’s going to be able to prove me wrong?”While Hebraic Rooters claim to “unite Jews and Christians” as their ultimate goal, in reality, they seem to hold both groups in disdain. Jews seem to think they are “Cokes” (the real thing), says Wootten in his book Restoring. He questions Jewish ancestral lines “(that have) been affected by conversions, adoptions and extramarital sex (fornication, adultery or rape).” He seems to have particular disdain for the Orthodox, labeling them, among other things, as mean-spirited rock-throwers. Christians fare no better under Wootten’s scathing pen: They are guilty of “Esau’s folly” n throwing away their birthright as the “biological heirs of the tribe of Ephraim.”Tired of being “second-class citizens,” these self-proclaimed “Ephraimites” demand that Jews “recognize” them as “Israelites” and that would include rights to the Middle East real estate.In 1948, “... instead of naming this Jewish state ‘Judah’ ... they named it Israel,” Wooten writes. “Now, in one fell swoop, the Jews grabbed the title back.” Wootten is appalled that these Jews had the chutzpah to name their country “Israel” when those of his “tribe” knew it was partially theirs!Eddie Chumney, who was a computer specialist before going full-time into “the ministry” almost a decade ago, heads a “synagogue” in Stark County; his members, he claims, come from Tuscarawas, Carrol, Stark, Wayne, Summit and Cuyahoga counties. Chumney also founded “Hebraic Roots International,” which claims a database network of subscribers in all 50 states and in 55 foreign countries. He travels extensively, both nationally and internationally, at the invitation of gentile groups who want to hear about their “lost (but now found!) heritage.”Raised Protestant, Chumney says he was “awakened” to what the New Testament “really” teaches after studying Jewish texts and taking Torah classes from a Reform rabbi in Akron. Chumney accuses Jews of “blindness” for not acknowledging their “Northern Kingdom” relatives. He threatens that peace will only come to Israel when they do so. He also says that Christians are “drunkards like Ephraim,” who have been lied to over the millennia n mostly because of the Catholic Church n as to what Jesus really taught.The gospel according to Chumney is that Jesus came to “unite the two kingdoms” (i.e., Jews and “Israelites”) and teach the “Israelites” (gentile Christians) to observe Jewish law. Of course, this is contrary to halachah (Jewish law), which actually says gentiles are forbidden to observe Shabbat, a doctrine which Chumney asserts is false and put forth by “the rabbis.” It’s a title he occasionally uses himself. (See sidebar, p. 29.)While Chumney alludes to both Jewish texts and the New Testament scriptures, mixing doctrines and beliefs from both, he chafes at the accusation that he has made up his own religion. He simply wants “the house of Judah” to recognize “the house of Joseph” (his house) and for the latter to recognize Jesus’s “true” mission “foreshadowed in the Torah when those who received the law at Mt. Sinai were the only ones who escaped Egypt because they had put the blood on their doorposts.”Chumney asserts that “obviously, there’s not going to be paper documentation” for the Ephraimite/Northern Kingdom/Lost Tribe/ House of Joseph connection. The only “proof,” it seems, is that one adheres to Chumney’s instruction.The Chumney/Wootten type of teaching is mushrooming. Rick Ross, an internationally-recognized cult expert, and a former Clevelander, calls it “a growing phenomenon in the United States.”Ross “runs into these groups all the time,” but says the “Hebraic Roots” movement is really just an old teaching with a facelift. He points out that the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert Armstrong in 1934, taught that Anglo-Saxons are direct descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, and that church viewed that teaching as the key, unlocking a true understanding of biblical prophecy. At its peak, there were 65,000 Armstrongists, says Ross.“These groups are very misleading and very disingenuous,” he cautions. “They have an affinity for Jewish holidays and symbols but have no Jewish background whatsoever,” says Ross. “It really becomes a shanda (shame), as my grandmother would say, when they start parading around with Torah scrolls and trotting out Jewish symbols.”Actually, says Ross, there is a psychological component as to why certain types of people are attracted to these types of groups. “It gives them a sense of elite identity. In fact, there is a Yiddish phrase that sums it up perfectly: kol mamzer melech n Every bastard wants to be a king.”Will the real rabbi please stand up?“Anyone can invent his own religion,” says Tovia Singer, founder and director of Outreach Judaism. “But the reason these movements are dangerous is that they don’t respect boundaries. They are not Jewish at all, and (its leaders and adherents) have no rabbinic background whatsoever; they are simply playing with Jewish beliefs and rituals.”Certainly one of the ways the Hebraic Rooters play with Judaism is with their cavalier use of the title “rabbi.” For example, in the advertisement for Eddie Chumney’s “2005 Midwest Feast of Tabernacles” event to be held in Ohio next month, three of the four speakers are listed as rabbis, although not one of them has any rabbinic training at all.If, as the former computer specialist-turned-self-proclaimed-minister says, people will be coming from as far as Florida to attend the weeklong event, they will paying to attend something where the rabbis are not rabbis at all, and the Succot experience is certainly not going to be a very “Jewish” one.If someone were to call him or herself an attorney or physician and attempt to practice as such, that individual would be thrown in jail, says Rabbi Singer. Using the title “rabbi” won’t get someone thrown in jail, but it is consumer fraud, he adds.“The parameters of Jewish identity exclusively and historically lay within the Jewish community,” says cult expert Rick Ross. “Unless you recognize the parameters of a religion’s identity, you are going down a slippery slope and opening the doors to anything and everything, such as Catholics for Krishna, Mormons for Mohammed, Baptists for Buddha.”