Gulf Power Rebate Form Printing: Fill & Download for Free

The carbon tax is an April fools joke and a very bad idea and it not rescued by administrative rebates. The tax is regressive and will hurt the poor and our export based economy. You cannot make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.A carbon tax to make the climate cooler is a dishonest and regressive money grab using fake science and wildly exaggerated scaremongering to pick our pockets. The earth is cooling why would we tax ourselves to make it more cold? There is no evidence of progressive warming globally or in Canada where a carbon tax was just imposed on April fools day.AXE THE TAX WON OUT IN AUSTRALIA AFTER COST BENEFIT STUDYMy Published CommentJames Grant Matkin
 The Canadian federal carbon tax implemented today is a bad April Fools joke as it will do nothing for the climate and will make Canada less competitive. Co2 is wholly beneficial minute and non-polluting plant food. Trump is right it is unproven as to any effect on the climate. Even if there was some effect taking action in Canada is futile while China and India push forward with new coal power plants every week. It is the classic dilemma of the tragedy of the commons. 'Axing the carbon tax' slogan defeated an Australian government recently because the public saw through the fog and dishonesty of the policy. Will Trudeau suffer the same fate?Trudeau: Trump Presidency Won't Change Canada's Carbon Price PlanThe science of Co2 based on evidence is as follows:*Carbon dioxide is non-toxic and wholly beneficial as it greens the deserts and makes the forests grow. We need more not less.*Carbon dioxide has no correlation with warming the temperature. There is a lag time after the temperature increases then Co2 increases.Temperature change correlates with solar cycles and sunspots when solar activity is low the temperature declines.The UN IPCC have fudged the data to try to overcome the reality that there is no global warming and temperatures have been in a long decline for the past 7000 years.The media print misleading stories to scare the public and advance the failing false impression that there is climate crisis.CO2 IS WHOLLY BENEFICIALWHAT IS THE SCIENCE OF Co2 - is it a pollutant?"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net...The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change Dr. Patrick MooreCO2 NOT CORRELATED WITH TEMPERATURE CHANGESCo2 levels have been falling dramatically from the past.Temperature is in a long term decline for the past 7000 years.Temperature rises before human Co2 emission riseCo2 lags temperature changeNo correlation of temperature with Co2Close correlation of solar cycles and temperature.UN erased climate history of Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age.Hansen manipulate data to make the weather seem warming nowDR TERRY HUGHES & THE POWER OF GRANT MONEYDr Terry HughesTerry Hughes, is the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, the same University who recently censured physicist at James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd who has dared to question scientific findings that purport to show the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble.IN June 2017, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef.After attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack…The ABC used a photo of reef bleaching on Flowerpot Rock in American Samoa in stories about the Great Barrier Reef.ABC FAKE, FAKE NEWS…See the fake Greenpeace picture (above) used here by the ABC: New national taskforce to help scientists prepare for predicted Barrier Reef coral bleaching – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016THE same ‘free-thinking’ university ousted the late Professor Bob Carterfrom a position of honour because he criticised aspects of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) movement that has infected Western society over the past thirty years.*Jim Steele nails Dr Hughes’ reef alarmism in this outstanding post via WUWT. (Please do read)An Ecologist’s Plea to Dr. Terry Hughes: The Public Needs Robust Science Regards Coral Bleaching, Not Fearmongering!A must read that exposes the difference between the localised effect of natural variables on The Great Barrier Reef, versus the activist junk science pushed out by ‘Professor’ Terry Hughes in order to advance the man-made global warming agenda…and, of course, secure lucrative government grants and funding.*CONCLUSIONGreat Barrier Reef Scaremongers Risk Billion of Dollars In Tourism and 10,000 JobsTHE ludicrous scaremongering by global warming activists about the “dying” reef is costing Australians jobs and money:Three surveys conducted in Britain, China, and the United States, have shown citizens in those countries – when the situation is raised with them – say that are concerned that the world-renowned reef is under severe threat. And many would reconsider visiting as a result…An estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia if the bleaching persists and worse if the [claimed] damage becomes permanent.The polls, which surveyed the attitudes and awareness of 1000 people in each market, found potential visitors were concerned over the state of the reef, which in turn could feed into them deciding to visit other Australian attractions or to go to places other than Australia entirely.The finding suggests the tourism businesses and related local economies adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, could suffer the loss of 10,000 jobs and that the Australian economy could lose as much as $1 billion per year in overseas income.The reef supports an estimated 70,000 jobs in the tourism and related sectors and accounts for a significant proportion of Australia’s tourist income.Great Barrier Reef Scaremongers Risk 10,000 Jobs | Climatism“To tell preposterous untruths in this ‘good’ cause is not just forgivable but a sign of superior morality. The bigger the whopper the more you must really care.” – Andrew Bolt•••CURRENT ATMOSPHERIC & SEA SURFACE TEMPSGLOBAL TEMPERATURELATEST February data from NASA’s UAH satellitedata, continues the significant temperature drop from the 2015/17 super El Niño peak with current temps only 0.2C above the running average:*Ottawa freezes its way to coldest capital city in the worldTemperature slipped below those of capitals in Russia, Kazakhstan and MongoliaCBC News ·Posted: Jan 19, 2019 9:44 AM ET | Last Updated: January 19Ottawa is the seventh coldest national capital in the world based on average annual temperature. (Canadian Press)If you were out early Saturday morning and felt like you were in the coldest place on earth, you were right — at least when it comes to capital cities around the globe.The temperature in Ottawa fell below every other national capital in the world on Saturday morning — and that doesn't include the wind chill.Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia, is on average the coldest capital city in the world, according to World Atlas.But the temperature in Ottawa — ranked the seventh coldest capital based on annual average temperature — dipped to –24 C, compared to –23 C in Ulan Bator.With the wind chill it felt like minus Горящие туры из Минска: агентство SEAVIEW comparison here are the temperatures in other capital cities that are colder than Ottawa on average:Astana –3 CMoscow –4 CHelsinki –2 CReykjavik 1 CTallinn –2 CTo top it all off, Environment Canada has issued an extreme cold warning and a winter storm warning for Ottawa.Ottawa and some surrounding areas could see up to 25 centimetres of snow over the next 24 hours.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/coldest-capital-city-in-world-1.4985296The idea that Canada needs a carbon tax to prevent MORE above average warming here based on data over last 70 years is unbelievable. The data is surely suspect for those of us living here for the past 70 years. The proof the earth is cooling again is seen visibly by the expansion of polar ice POLAR VORTEX.EATHERJanuary 30, 2019 3:52 pmUpdated: January 31, 2019 4:28 pmCanadian prairies colder than North Pole, almost as cold as MarsBy Mike KoncanWeather Anchor/Reporter Global News43

153.4k

 

 

 

moreToronto under extreme cold weather alert ahead of big temperature drop SundayFullscreenWATCH: Extreme cold warnings for much of Canada- A A +ListenThe term ‘extreme’ has been circulating across the continent as provinces and states experience cold weather, but few places are as cold as the prairies.Polar Vortex is also a great buzzword, and it has a major impact on the weather and temperatures around a big chunk of the country.The atmospheric conditions are an upper level low pressure system higher up above the earth’s surface. Around the eastern prairies, a ridge of high pressure has built up, essentially meaning that the eastern prairies are getting a steady stream of air from the top of the world.READ MORE: Extreme cold warning continues along eastern SaskatchewanSimply put, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are being blasted by air from above the Arctic, making them the coldest places in the country, and quite possibly on the planet.Cold air sitting over much of Canada Wednesday Jan 30, 2019.Global NewsThe coldest place in the country on Wednesday is Key Lake Sask., with an air temperature reading of -47.2 Celsius.The award for coldest major city in Canada goes to Winterpeg. At 7 a.m. the temperature was -39.8 C and the wind chill was as cold as -52.Winnipeg has been dealing with colder than normal temperatures for almost two straight weeks. Typically this time of year, temperatures range from -21 C to -11 C. Only once in the last two weeks have temperatures gotten to that point — cold nights below -25 C have become the norm.Colder than where?When it gets this cold, it’s hard not to compare to other notable frozen locations, as it turns out, -39.8 C is hard to beat.The North Pole was expected to hover around -32 C Wednesday.Siberia, typically the coldest place on earth, will likely deal with light snow and temperatures ranging from -15 to -23 C. The winds there will also be light, so wind chill will not be much of a factor.Taking it out of our atmosphere, Mars hasn’t given an updated forecast for Wednesday, but expected a high of -7 C Tuesday. Even though the forecasted low was -70 C, an afternoon on the red planet doesn’t sound so bad compared to Winnipeg.WATCH: Winnipeg’s freezing cold temperatures are colder than MarsThe extended cold snap for around the prairies has broken some records in northern Manitoba but nothing for Winnipeg. Record lows this time of year usually range between -40 and -44 and have typically been set back in the 1880 and 1890s.Where Winnipeg could break a record is in coldest daily maximum temperature — the coldest “high.” This time of year, the records go back to some of the coldest dates in local memory as recent as 2004 but also 1996 and 1966. They also go back even further for the first days of February back to 1886 and 1891.WATCH: ‘Polar vortex’ grips major U.S. cities in historic low temperaturesThe record on Jan. 30, set in 2004, is -30.8 C. Winnipeg was expecting a high of -31 C Wednesday, so it will be close.As the weekend approaches, the temperatures around the southern prairies are expected to moderate and start to return closer to normal with these days likely ending up as the coldest of the entire winter.PHOTOS OF THE ARCTIC 1979, 2012 AND 2017 COMPARED TO 79 LEVELS.Largest Increase In November 2018 Sea Ice Volume On RecordPosted on December 13, 2018 by tonyhellerThe increase in Arctic sea ice volume during November was the largest on record.. Also the science of flooding is not evidence of warming. From our childhood we know rainy days are cooler and sunny days are warmer.MY PUBLISHED COMMENTThe issue of carbon taxes for America has a new hurdle with the mantra ENERGY AFFORDABILITY from the 'YELLOW JACKET' policy backlash by violent protestors in France. Macron's government may be defeated for attempting this unwise political tool, like Australia where AXE THE TAX defeated an incumbent government. Australia was the first country to impose a carbon tax. Washington State follows the backlash in Ontario where Premier Doug Ford and his conservative coalition were swept into power by Canadian voters in June on a platform that opposed carbon taxes. “In some senses the French are ahead of the rest of the world on this,” said John Constable, energy editor at the Global Warming Policy Forum, a U.K.-based think tank. The UN IPCC lacks both science and public credibility with their false concern about trace amounts 0.117% human emissions of Co2 from fossil fuels. The physics denies the extraordinary Al Gore alarmist claim that humans have become the control knob of the climate???Washington state voters reject carbon taxISSUE: Why carbon taxes are climatically useless.Trudeau’s plan resembles the papal indulgences of old.He wants Canadians to pay a financial penalty for the sin of using fossil fuel energy, even though fossil fuels power modern civilization.Just as papal indulgences did nothing to remove the sin, Trudeau’s carbon pricing plan does nothing, or next to nothing, to meet Trudeau’s commitments to the United Nations to reduce our industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2030.Goldstein Toronto SunENERGYWith Climate Change Science Unsettled, a Carbon Tax is Even More UselessNicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / April 18, 2013 / 0 Comments••Kurt Strazdins KRT/NewscomReuters’s environment correspondent Alister Doyle provides even more fodder for why a carbon (energy) tax or the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is economically and environmentally foolish. Doyle writes:Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.Figuring out the reasons and severity behind climate change is a worthwhile cause, but Doyle’s article is another example that the science is far from settled as to what is causing climate change, how quickly it’s occurring, and the effect of increased greenhouse gas emissions (natural or manmade) on the earth’s temperature. Doyle continues:Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.Richard Tol, a climate and economics professor at the University of Sussex, told Doyle, “My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years.”One of The Heritage Foundation’s eight principles of The American Conservation Ethic is that science should be employed as one tool to guide public policy. Science is a critical and informative guiding tool, but it should not dictate public policy, especially when lawmakers distort the science to help them meet their policy agenda. As we explain in the principles, “Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based on scientific opinions rather than scientific facts.”Even with the science unsettled, proponents of carbon taxes, the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, and green energy subsidies argue that we should enact these policies as precautionary measures and protect future generations. But we’ll be leaving our children and grandchildren a world with higher energy costs and less economic prosperity with nothing to show for it.Since the large majority of America’s energy needs are met with carbon-emitting conventional fuels, a carbon tax would cripple economic growth. Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis recently analyzed the carbon tax legislationproposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D–CA) and Bernie Sanders (I–VT) and found family income losses of $1,000 per year and 400,000 jobs lost as soon as 2016.It’s not just making our children and grandchildren worse off; it’s making us worse off through higher energy bills, higher product prices, and less economic opportunity. And as the carbon tax increases, so does the economic burden.What’s worse, the climate impact of a carbon tax is almost too small to notice. A $25-per-ton tax would moderate global warming at most by 0.11 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.Congress should be proactive in addressing climate change, but only by categorically rejecting the idea of a carbon tax and removing the ability of the EPA and any other federal agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.Climate Change Science Unsettled, Carbon Tax Even More UnwisePCs win Ontario election — here’s a look at the promises Doug Ford madeBy Maham AbediNational Online Journalist, Breaking News Global NewsPCs win Ontario election — here’s a look at the promises Doug Ford madeMY PUBLISHED COMMENT‪James Grant Matkin‪ ·‪This election victory is a great victory for science as Doug Ford promises to fight the phony carbon tax. Climate alarmists are a scourage to the 2 billion living off grid without electiricity. They need life giving fossil fuels particularly coal. Demonizing Co2 vital plant food based on pseudo-science in order under the PARIS ACCORD to make the climate colder is just plain madness. Unstoppable solar cycles and ocean currents are far more the control knob of the climate than miniscule amounts of essential human emissions of Co2. We need more Co2 as it is wholly beneficial. Global cooling is the fear for the next few decades and we must eschew inefficient, wasteful and intermittent renewables that under Premier Wynne punished Ontario citizens with high cost electricity rates. Congratulations to Ontario voters for their common sense repudiating climate alarmism.The Ontario Progressive Conservatives under Ford won a majority mandate on Thursday ending more than 15 years of Liberal rule in the province, defeating Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals and Andrea Horwath’s NDP.Some of his big-ticket items include a 20 per cent tax cut for the middle class, scrapping the Liberals’ updated sex-ed curriculum, ending cap and trade, reducing business taxes, while also building new long-term care beds, and a tax rebate for child care. Ford, who at times drew comparisons to Donald Trump, also made a number of populist pledges including cutting gas prices by 10 cents a litre, introducing buck-a-beer and cutting hydro bills by 12 percent.Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives win majority governmentRECENT GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTHGlobal warming caused by minuscule amounts, near zero, of ‘Co2 is a myth. The UN IPCC predicted in 2001 that global warming would cause ‘moderate winters’ according to their computer modelling. Untrue just like the alarmist hypothesis of Co2 controlling the climate.Delingpole: The Frozen Hell Outside Your Window Is What Global Warming Looks LikeThe yellow sphere represents 1 to 2,500 molecules which is the amount of CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.THE BIGGEST MYTH OF ALLThe End of Snow? – The New York Times2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…A good example of climate predictions gone awry is in the area of snow.“97%” of venerated ‘scientific’ institutions in concert with the warmist mainstream media were predicting the end of snow…IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit(CRU) assured us that :Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)SNOWFALL Will Become “A Very Rare And Exciting Event…” | ClimatismIN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”due to the activities of personkind…IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTHEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”warmer-winters-ipcc*THE “97% of Experts” Agreed Too!2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif2000 : Spiegel…“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”2004 : Mark Lynas told us…“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel…Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow…Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.20062006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…“It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU…“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”2007 : Die Zeit…“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”WHY 97% CONSENSUS ABOUT THE END OF SNOW?This is a vital question and the answer punctures the human caused Co2 climate change.The alarmists claimed that the climate will become too hot and cause a ‘catastrophe’ for human civilization. With this view of the future of course winters must end as they moderate a too hot summer preventing a climate crisis. This predictions puts winter weather in play in a way all other weather is not. Further this prediction about moderate winters must happen or the apocalyptic view that human emissions of fossil fuels will create a climate crisis catastrophe is just fiction? There is no polar ice imagined in the future by the NOAA alarmists.NOAA PROJECTED END OF POLAR ICE AND SNOW BY 2085.FAILED. The prediction of moderate winters without the Arctic polar ice is bunk. Mother nature and natural variation wins over the discarded theories of the the 1800s. After 2000 Arctic ice expands and does not retreat as predicted. Here is reality not computer modelled political scaremongering -IMAGES | SEPTEMBER 20, 2000Global View of the Arctic Ocean

Research on political corruption suggests that a primary contributor to good governance (and through that broadly shared economic growth) is a free press that informs and invigorates lively but respectful political discourse and high electoral participation. This essay summarizes this research, recent trends in media ownership and investigative journalism, and increasing problems with crony capitalism. This includes research documenting a gap in political knowledge between the US and Europe, and things people can do today to help improve democracy in the U.S. and elsewhere.Bottom line: Lower quality local news leads on average to fewer people filing to run for political office, lower voter turnout, less spending on political campaigns, politicians who don't work as hard for their constituents, and in increase in the cost of government.[1]Contents1 Better media means less corruption2 Trends in media ownership and investigative journalism3 Crony capitalism 3.1 Media and US law 3.2 Media and economic growth 3.3 Media and national defense4 Policy implications5 How can humans combat crony capitalism?6 References7 NotesBetter media means less corruptionEconometric research has found that countries with greater press freedom tend to have less corruption.[2]Conversely, a study of “The Impact of Newspaper Closures on Public Finance” concluded that “Financing Dies in Darkness”.[3]More specifically, “borrowing costs increase by 5 to 11 basis points in the long run.”Greater political accountability and lower corruption were more likely where newspaper consumption was higher in data from roughly 100 countries and from different states in the US.[4]A "poor fit between newspaper markets and political districts reduces press coverage of politics. ... Congressmen who are less covered by the local press work less for their constituencies: they are less likely to stand witness before congressional hearings ... . Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press coverage of the local members of congress."[5]This was supported by an analysis of the consequences of the closure of the Cincinnati Post in 2007. The following year, "fewer candidates ran for municipal office in the Kentucky suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely to win reelection, and voter turnout and campaign spending fell.[6]An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the US and Europe since World War II noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet: "The digital revolution has been good for freedom of expression [and] information [but] has had mixed effects on freedom of the press": It has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of Internet journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.[7]Social media is great for “microsegmenting” the audience for the benefit of advertisers. This exploits fundamental defects in how people think and make decisions, documented in Thinking, Fast and Slow, summarizing the research for which Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel memorial prize in economics -- even though he's a psychologist, not an economist.[8]The results can be alternatively described as “Balkanizing” the body politic for the benefit of selected elites, reflected, e.g., in the Brexit vote and the 2016 US presidential election: But it's not just Cambridge Analytica: These techniques are employed by other companies and possibly also by cyberwarfare units of the militaries of major countries.[9][10][11][12]Trends in media ownership and investigative journalismThe ownership of the media have become increasingly concentrated in recent decades. Since 1997, the number of media conglomerates decreased from fifty to five.[13]In the US, a "five-year study of investigative journalism on TV news completed in 2002 determined that investigative journalism has all but disappeared from the nation's commercial airways.[14]Many journalists have moved to "public relations," where they now write "press releases" favoring their clients. In 1960, there was one PR specialist for every professional journalist in the US; in 2012, there were four PR specialists for every journalist.[15]Research in the US, Britain and Australia found that over half of reports in leading newspapers and television "were based solely on press releases",[16]a phenomenon called churnalism. Meanwhile, the average daily audience for television news in the US fell from 52.1 million in 1980 to 23.2 million in 2010.[17]While the funding and the audience for television news and newspapers has been declining, non-pofits devoted to investigative journalism are attempting to fill this gap. Some are members of the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) and / or the Online News Association (ONA). However, their funding is less than a tenth of the "estimated $1.6 billion in annual reporting and editing capacity" of the US (roughly 30 percent) lost between 2000 and 2011.[18][7]Herman and Chomsky claimed that the mainstream media exist to manufacture consent for the elite consensus.[19]Media organizations sell behavior change in their audience to their funders (advertisers for the commercial media). Many advertisers perform experiments, advertising in some markets but not others. This allows them to measure the behavior change they purchased.Percent correct answers in surveys of knowledge of domestic and international politics vs. per capita subsidies for public media in the Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Source: The "politicalKnowledge" data set in the "Ecdat" package available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network, based on research cited by McChesney and Nichols (2010).One result of this trend is a decrease in knowledge of current affairs in the US relative to Europe documented in surveys summarized in the accompanying figure. College graduates in the US were answered correctly roughly 70 percent of questions about political issues as people with the equivalent of high school in Denmark and Finland, while high school graduates in the US could only answer roughly 30 percent of the same questions. The primary difference was funding for mass media, according to McChesney and Nichols (2010): This was $1.35 per person in the US in 2007 vs. the equivalent of $101 in Denmark and Finland. The United Kingdom was in between: They spent the equivalent of $80 per person, and Brits with roughly 12th grade educations correctly answered almost 60 percent of the questions on average.This does not mean that the government should decide which media organization should get government subsidies. Rather, it suggests that any nation that values democracy – and reductions in political corruption – should find a way to subsidize mass media. This supports concerns expressed by the founders of the new United States when drafting its current constitution in 1787: The founders believed that the new republic might not survive without vibrant political debate among voters. To encourage this, the founders provided exceptionally low rates for newspapers delivered by the new U.S. Postal Service.[20]Various systems have been proposed for increasing citizen involvement in funding investigative journalism; these will be discussed further after an enhanced description of problems with crony capitalism.Crony capitalismThe previous section discussed how advertisers get a return on the investments in marketing communications. But major advertisers want more than merely selling more products or services: They don't want to feed the mouth that bites them, e.g., by publicizing their efforts to obtain favors from government. They also don't want information disseminated questioning product or workplace safety or environmental problems associated with their operations.Conservatives like Grover Norquist and liberals like Ralph Nader agree that crony capitalism / corporate welfare should be limited.[21]Estimates of the cost of crony capitalism in the United States have ranged from $100 billion per year[22]($1,200 per family per year) to $39,000 per family per year (over $100 per day). For example, US anti-trust law requires congressional approval of major corporate mergers and acquisitions that might reduce competition. These mergers are usually approved without substantive analysis or commentary disseminated by major media outlets. These mergers and acquisitions have made it easier for the larger corporations to engage in numerous activities not available to smaller competitors:Larger corporations often export profits to low-tax countries.[23]Larger companies can more easily obtain subsidies from governments eager for new facilities on the claims of increased employment often fail to provide the promised benefits the big businesses claim.[24][25]Fewer producers means higher prices for consumers.Fewer employers means reduced competition for labor and lower wages.Media and US lawMillions of words in the US federal tax code and regulations, 1955-2005 according to The Tax Foundation. [1=income tax code; 2=other tax code; 3=income tax regulations; 4=other tax regulations; solid line= total].The US tax code and other laws are written primarily of, by and for major political campaign contributors,[26][27]and very few details of this process are exposed by the media.Data from the Tax Foundation plotted in the accompanying figure shows that US tax law and regulations currently exceed 10 million words and has been growing at the rate of roughly 150,000 words per year at least since 1955, when this number was just under 1.4 million words. Something happened between 1945 and 1955 to dramatically increase the rate at which new words have been added to the tax code. To see this, we note that If we extend this trend backwards from 1955, we get a negative number of words in tax code and regulations in 1945. That's clearly incorrect.It would be interesting to understand what happened to increase the rate of addition of new words. One fairly obvious explanation is that big businesses in that period found that a way of dealing with the high official tax rates of that era is to lobby for special exemptions for their industry or business. The media play a role in this by only rarely reporting on any of the details. As with Trump, they have a conflict of interest in providing balanced news coverage of this and any other favors big businesses try to get from government: It's hard to get repeat business biting the hands that feed you. Beyond that, the major media conglomerates in the US are primary beneficiaries of this resulting political corruption.Media and economic growthMore subtle and insidious are the reductions in economic growth that flow from reduced spending on new products and processes that typically follow major mergers.[28]Similarly, changes in copyright laws in recent decades have made it easier for media giants to prevail in strategic lawsuits against public participation. For example, attorneys for MP3.com were sued because they "should have known" that customers could not legally use MP3's service to access in different ways music they had already purchased. Venture capitalists supporting Napster were sued for essentially the same reason.The supporters of MP3 and Napster lost not on legal merits but because they did not have the millions of dollars a legal defense would have required. Constitutional law scholar Lawrence Lessig suggested that this stifles innovation, thereby slowing economic growth, the exact opposite of the letter and intent of the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The Supreme Court denied Lessig's constitutionality argument.)Seemingly minor differences in rates of economic growth can convert a technology leader to a follower and vice versa after a few decades. Leaders tend to enjoy higher rates of employment in higher quality jobs.Media and national defenseThe US system of funding media from advertising may also substantially increase the cost of national defense and foreign policy by making the world more dangerous. This claim is so different from the mainstream that it requires substantial justification. One example is the "935 lies" by seven of the top Bush administration officials that justified the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.[29]In disseminating those lies major media might be described as cheerleaders to the point that leading media personalities were fired for trying to provide air time to experts who claimed that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that were the official reason for the US-led invasion.[30]After coalition forces failed to find evidence of the WMDs, President Bush jokingly looked for WMDs under his desk in the Oval Office.[31]More recently the official UK Iraq Inquiry, published 6 July 2016, concluded that the Blair government had overstated the threat from Saddam Hussein. In so doing, it contradicted the Hutton Inquiry, whose finding supporting Blair led to the resignations of Gilligan, Davies and Dyke.The G. W. Bush administration's claims of Iraqi WMD were out of date but otherwise not without merit: An episode of Frontline that originally aired Sept. 11, 1990 (a decade before G. W. Bush's election) documented how the U.S. and European governments, as well as Western corporations, helped Iraq build a "massive arsenal of tanks, planes, missiles, and chemical weapons during the 1980s."[32]These weapons were used against US troops in the 1990-91 Gulf War, as documented in the 1994 Riegle Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration.The point here is that the mainstream commercial media in the US had a conflict of interest in disseminating information about this in the 1980s: Some major advertisers were making money from direct sales of military technology to Iraq. The positions of other business leaders are less clear.However, many US business leaders were probably happy to see the 1953 Iranian coup, which replaced a democratic government there with the Shah, because the democratic government had confiscated the property of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC). The Iranian government justified its actions by pointing to the refusal of the APOC to to submit their financial accounts for an audit, and the Iranian government believed that the APOC had paid them substantially less than their contractual obligation.US international business interests were almost certainly threatened by the expropriation and likely happy to see the democratic government replaced by the autocratic Shah. The 1953 Iranian coup is rarely mentioned in the US media, and when it is, the refusal of APOC to submit to an audit is rarely if ever mentioned. To do otherwise could offend people in major businesses who control substantial advertising contracts with major US media corporations. Similar things could be said about the 1949 Syrian coup, as the democratic government it replaced had opposed the Trans-Arabian Pipeline. The Syrian portion of that project was quickly approved by the new government.The Wikipedia article on "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" lists five democracies destroyed by coups secretly organized by the US. Among repressive regimes, the U.S. has traditionally supported those considered friendly to U.S. international business interests and opposed those that seemed more concerned with the welfare of their own people, as suggested by the Wikipedia article on "United States support of authoritarian regimes".Policy implicationsThe previous analysis suggests that the world needs more substantive investigative journalism to question crony capitalism in real time and encourage responsible citizens to demand more careful evaluation of critical issues that benefit those who control advertising and political campaign budgets against the interests of the rest of humanity.If the previous analysis is accurate, it validates Thomas Jefferson's observation of a tendency for "The functionaries of every government ... to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit [for liberty and property] without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."This analysis suggests that concerned individuals may wish to consider the following policy issues:Net neutrality: The Internet gives voice to the voiceless in ways that challenge existing elites. It has been used to disseminate hate speech as well as more constructive political messages and to help people organize for good and ill. Mainstream media have been losing audience share to new (Internet-based) media. In addition to the direct threat to the existing mainstream media, this poses an indirect threat to other elites who have relied on the dominant media to manufacture consent for their programs. If net neutrality is blocked, it will reduce the prospects for democracy and make it easier for traditional demagogues blessed by the established media to stampede the public into ill advised actions.Protect journalists: US journalist James Risen has been threatened with imprisonment for refusing to identify sources for some of the things he has published.[33] Obama administration officials who tried to imprison Risen claimed that his actions threaten national security. A counter argument asserts that Risen's and similar publications threaten national security less than the secrets they exposed (e.g., US complicity in coups like those described above).[34]Citizen funded journalism: The survey results cited above suggests a need to increase funding for investigative journalism in the US from the current $1.35 per person per year to something closer to the $101 in Denmark and Finland – or even higher – but to do it in a way that limits the ability of politicians to punish journalists who expose too much. This can be done in various ways including counting valid clicks on web sites and providing tax rebates or matching funds for small dollar contributions to organizations devoted to investigative journalism. Bruce Ackerman proposed "Internet news vouchers" that ask Internet users to "click a box whenever they read a news article that contributes to their political understanding. ... [A] National Endowment for Journalism ... would compensate the news organization originating the article on the basis of a strict mathematical formula: the more clicks, the bigger the check from the Endowment."[35][36] Dan Hind proposed "public commissioning" of news, where "Journalists, academics and citizen researchers would post proposals for funding" investigative journalism on a particular issue with a public trust funded from taxes or license fees. "These proposals would be made available online and in print in municipal libraries and elsewhere. ... The public would then vote for the proposals it wanted to support.[37] McChesney recommended "letting every American of the age of eighteen direct up to $200 of government money annually to any nonprofit medium of his or her choice. The only conditions would be that the recipient be a recognized nonprofit, that the recipient do no commercial advertising, and that whatever is produced by the subsidy be posted online immediately, made available at no charge, and enter the public domain."[38] McChesney and Nichols noted that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur forced the German and Japanese governments after World War II to subsidize investigative journalism, which they still do. In the summer of 1945, Eisenhower “called in German reporters and told them he wanted a free press. If he made decisions that they disagreed with, he wanted them to say so in print. The reporters having been under the Nazi regime since 1933, were astonished”. McChesney and Nichols compared that with the occupation of Iraq following the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, which accepted no criticism.[39] If the analysis of this essay is accurate, the lack of a free press in Iraq since 2003 has contributed materially to the current problems in that region.Restrict secrecy: Leading government officials claim that their effectiveness in crafting public policy is substantially reduced by excessive interference from concerned citizens. Many international agreements may not be possible if the negotiators cannot keep secret their negotiating strategy. With logic like this, the G. W. Bush and Obama administrations have claimed that national security would be jeopardized if current draft trade agreements were published. Of course, major campaign contributors have access. While this raises questions about the meaning of "national security," classification decisions can only be challenged in three ways: (a) Congressional oversight committees, who rarely do so out of fear of being shunned by campaign contributors or pilloried in the media. (b) Journalists, whose only protection is the hope that an engaged electorate will make it politically unacceptable for attorneys general to prosecute. (c) Whistle-blowers willing to put their lives on the line to place their oath of office, "to protect the constitution," above the risks of imprisonment or exile. Because of the 1953 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Reynolds, judges in the U.S. do not allowed defendants or plaintiffs to challenge administration assertions of national security. This is a problem, because history records numerous examples where claims of national security were fraudulently used to cover up ineptitude and criminality. If the previous analysis is correct the vast majority of humanity would be better off if plaintiffs and defendants were allowed to challenge claims of national security.[34]How can humans combat crony capitalism?The above analysis suggests that crony capitalism is a major problem, and the primary antidote is to increase both the demand for and supply of investigative journalism. How can this be accomplished?Protect net neutrality: An important current issue is the current attack on net neutrality represented by Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the January 14, 2014, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that vacated portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010. The FCC responded by issuing a tentative ruling to allow Internet service providers like Verizon to provide different levels of service, with faster delivery speeds reserved for web sites that would pay extra. A primary question (as of fall 2014) is whether Internet Service Providers are "common carriers" or "information services": Since the 1960s US law has prohibited "common carriers" from providing different levels of service to different users. If ISPs are "information services," they can charge content providers for delivering their data to end users.[40] The major ISPs are oligopolies that already have allegedly abused their powers in ways that harm consumers. Proponents of net neutrality claim that the abuse will get substantially worse if the FCC classifies ISPs as "information services". Concerned citizens can support organizations actively working to block this ruling. Some of the organizations leading protests against the proposed rule (and supporting net neutrality more generally are Fight for the Future, battleforthenet.com, FreePress.net, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, Common Cause, and United Republic.Protect journalists: The closer investigative journalists get to exposing questionable practices in government, the more dangerous their work becomes. Concerned citizens can get involved with organizations concerned with protecting journalists such as Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, IFEX, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders.Citizen funded journalism: Unlike the other implications suggested by this analysis, proposals for citizen funding of journalism have so far not generated a substantive grass roots movement in the US. Many independent investigative journalism organizations belong to the Investigative News Network and the Online News Association. Organizations concerned about this issue include Free Press, which has organized the National Conferences for Media Reform. Citizens concerned about this issue can also support other electoral reform initiatives including the following: (a) Overturn the Citizens United decision of the US Supreme court. Move to Amend is focused solely on this issue. Many other organizations support a range of proposals in that area. (b) Greater transparency in how political campaigns are funded such as the DISCLOSE Acts that failed in the 111th and 112th Congresses (2009-2012) and counterparts at the state level.[41] (c) Improve the availability of data on campaign finance and lobbying; for sources of data on this, see the "Sources of data" section of the Wikipedia article on Campaign finance in the United States. Without waiting for substantive changes in how elections and media are funded individuals can ask more questions about the funding of the media they consume. They can consume less media funded by advertisers and more media funded by individuals and foundations that seem more concerned with reality than a political agenda. Individuals can also seek vigorous but respectful political discourse with people with whom they may not agree. Nader's book "Unstoppable" describes many examples of Left-Right alliances "to dismantle the corporate state".[42] Many of these were blocked by corporate propaganda. Nader describes ways that common citizens can collaborate effectively with those of other political persuasions on issues of common concern. Let's make "talking politics" the national (or international) sport. To do this, we must learn to listen without judgment, to accept others where they are, and look for common ground without trying to convince the others that our "truths" are better than theirs.Socialize Internet monopolies and oligopolies that threaten democracy: Markets dominated by monopolies, oligopolies and cartels are not free.[43] Media scholar Robert McChesney said that the Chicago school laissez-faire champion Henry C. Simons “argued that it was imperative -- for both genuine free enterprise and democracy -- that monopolistic firms be broken into smaller competitive units, or, if that was impossible, as with utilities and railroads, that they should be 'socialized' and directed by the government in a transparent manner.”[44] McChesney said we should “End the ISP Cartel”[45] and socialize the “monopolistic titans like Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, eBay, Microsoft, Intel, Cicso, Oracle, and Qualcomm,” following Simmons' recommendation.[46] McChesney claimed that Verizon, AT&T and Comcast “dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than most citizens in other advanced nations and get much lousier service. 'They're making a ton of money,' one telecommunication executive said about the cartel members in 2013. 'They're picking the pockets of consumers.'”[47] “These are not 'free market' companies ... . Their business model ... has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services. Their 'competitive advantage' ... has been world-class lobbying. It was that power that made it possible for them to merge endlessly into corporate goliaths and permitted them to quietly overturn existing regulations a decade ago”.[48] The public interest community has responded to this cartel in a number of ways, most specifically in pushing for net neutrality and in creating local government owned ISPs. A “2014 report by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that municipally owned ISPs offer higher speeds at lower prices ... . Wherever these systems exist they have proven to be very popular across the political spectrum, and especially with small business owners.[49] “The cartel has passed its historical expiration date. These firms are parasites that use their government-created monopoly power to exact economic 'rents' -- by which economists mean undeserved income -- from consumers and other businesses. Let's cash them out at a price that reflects actual investment, not speculative frenzy. Then let's make cellphone and broadband access ubiquitous and as close to free as possible. ... We have a terrific proven model to start with from municipally owned broadband systems.[50] McChesney noted in particular one immediate benefit of converting Google to a nonprofit entity:[51] “the incessant commercial pressure to collect every possible bit of information on users to better manipulate them would be undermined. It would be far easier to have a regimen with standards closer to what was imagined by the engineers who created the Internet: power would be in the hands of the users, who would control their own digital fate, rather than in the hands of giant firms that are mostly unaccountable”.[52]Restrict secrecy: People concerned about this issue may wish to support organizations with a major focus in this area. These include Americans for Less Secrecy, More Democracy, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), the Federation of American Scientists, especially their Project on Government Secrecy, the National Security Archive, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other organizations with similar agendas including some cited above.[34] A campaign active in the fall of 2014 is to secure the passage of S. 2520, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VIT) and John Cornyn (R-TX). It is supported by over 50 organizations including the ones just named, led especially Americans for Less Secrecy, More Democracy and POGO].