Ups Ground Claims Form Printable: Fill & Download for Free

Recognizing that surely the question is “Why is there so much debate about the legitimacy of the claims that humans are a significant contributor to global warming?”Q: Why is there so much debate about the legitimacy of global warming?#1. Because there is no proof of a causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and Earth’s temperature, and lots of evidence against such.#2. Because there is incontrovertible proof that the remedies claimed necessary to fight global warming:Investment in development of solar, geothermal, biofuel, and other renewable energy sourcesPrograms to encourage installation of solar panels on residencesEncourage purchase of fuel efficient vehiclesEncourage purchase of electric vehiclesPenalize purchase of gas guzzlersEncourage increased home insulationEncourage use of energy efficient appliancesEncourage use of public transit, carpooling, bike lanesIncreased taxation on gas (price on carbon)Installation of smart meters and time-of-use billingSource Document proving such: National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.Were ALL pre-existing policies conceived and publicly announced by the Democrat US president Jimmy Carter back in April of 1977, BEFORE any climate alarmisms had been invented, and were claimed necessary to “Save The US Economy” when announced, and had nothing to do with “Save The World”.#3. IF governments actually believed their own assertions, the most sensible solution would be to push the development and building of nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but that gets left out, while Carter’s desire to push solar, biofuel, and other renewable energy sources don’t get left out.#4. The claim of “settled” science is rather lame, considering there is not a single climate scientist that can explain or quantify gravity. They can’t explain why the gravitational constant fluctuates. They can’t explain what causes the Earth’s gravitational anomaly patterns. They can’t explain why they have failed to include gravity in Quantum Mechanics. They can’t explain why General Relativity (which includes gravity), so grossly disagrees with the math of Quantum Mechanics which does not.They cannot speak to the fluctuations in the spatial volume of the atmosphere. They know it fluctuates in response to the solar cycles, but cannot measure the amount of fluctuation, nor why the solar cycles cause the fluctuations.They cannot explain why the Sun does not freeze. Not using current level of understanding of physics.They cannot explain the size, location and quantity of Earth’s weather cells, the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar Cells. The patterns responsible for the desertification and rainforest bands that run around the Earth.And amidst all those unknowns, and lack of quantification and understanding, they like to claim “settled science”. And claim that their predictions of impending catastrophic doom should be taken seriously.#5. There is evidence that at times the data selection, data “adjustments”, homogenization, detrending, etc, is not all above board. Evidence of suppression of data, to make other data seem more valid. Questionable selection of time frames and base lines. Extremely limited presentation of error margins. Questionable uses of statistics and claims of assuredness. Questionable presentation of data.#6. There are many many examples of predictions of impending catastrophe with dates that have come and gone, with no catastrophes occuring. One of the most noticable is the many claims that sea level rise would wash out low level islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.Source: Missed It By That MuchFrom 1989. Thirty years ago:United Nations 1989“He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not CheckedBut reality is NOT at all matching predictions.https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#7. For thirty years the measurement supposedly confirming climate change was the temperature of the air 6 feet above the ground. Then the air stopped warming after 1998. There was an embarrassing pause in the increasing temperature of the air. Until just in time for the Paris talks in 1915, climate “scientists” decided we had to also include sea temperatures. And they claimed that they were cooler in the past, and that was where the global warming was going, into the oceans.Then all the temperature data sets started to combine sea and land temperatures to continue their claims of “warmest year on record”. Ducking and dodging to save face, and claim there is continued need for alarm.#8. All climate research funding, which is considerable, in the billions of US dollars per year, goes towards research geared towards finding potential reasons to claim the use of fossil fuels is causing climate change. This started back in 1977 as part of Jimmy Carters US Energy Independence Plan.Source: National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.The same plan where you might remember from above, that he said we had to invest in Solar, put solar panels on 2.5 million homes, buy electric cars (even though there were zero models being produced by any car companies), and so on.In that same period Carter bumped up the EPA budget by $4.7 billion dollars, an 800% increase over two years, while staff in the same period went up only 25%. Through the 1980’s it was the EPA working with the UNEP that pushed the research of and publication of climate alarmism.#9. Historical precedence of the use of claims of climate alarmism to manipulate and control the mindset of populations in pretty much every single civilization that has existed to date.The best known one being the story of the Great Deluge. A story over 4,000 years old. It even predates the invention of the alphabet and the written word. It started as the Epics of Gilgamesh. It later got plagiarized and included in the bible as the Story of Noah and the Ark. It tells of human behaviour and activity angering the gods, who in turn decided to punish humans and purge them from the Earth by causing heavy, prolonged rainfall, rising sea levels, land getting flooded and people dying.The US Department of COMMERCE has a subdivision called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. People refer to it as the NOAA, pronounced NoAH.And NoAH, subdivision of the Dept of Commerce, claims: Human behaviour and activity is going to result in more frequent rainfalls. And they claim that rainfalls will be heavier and more prolonged. That there will be more flooding. That sea levels will rise. That land will be flooded. That human and animal life will be endangered.It doesn’t take a genius to notice the claim happens to sound a little familiar.And it doesn’t take a genius to notice that the NOAA logo is a white bird between sea and sky with no land in sight, exactly like the white bird sent out from Noah’s Ark to look for the first non-flooded land it could find.Source: File:NOAA logo.svg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_logo.svg)Of course, we all know that the Story of Noah’s Ark is bullshit. A big stinky pile of crap. A myth. Not at all representative of reality.But in Christian churches around the world it got taught as truth for more than a thousand years. To Christians. That believed it to be truth. Some going to far as to search for the Ark’s remains. Many such expeditions over the years. Even as recently as 2011.Remember NOAA is a division of the Dept of Commerce. Remember every piece of US currency has printed on it “In God We Trust”.…..Just need connect the dots between the lack of scientific understanding of necessary foundational knowledge (gravity and barometric pressure), the pre-existing motivation to encourage “Save The World” remedies, the one sided government funding of research, the failed predictions of catastrophe, the very questionable treatment of data, the persistent historical use of human influence on climate to manipulate thinking and behaviour, and the lack of serious investment in the most viable possible remedy nuclear power, to recognize that climate alarmism is a narrative.Connect the dots. They are all laid out for you. See the big picture.Source: Noah and the ark Genesis 6 Dot-to-dot Printable Sunday School | Dot-to-dot Printables For Sunday School | Pinterest | Sunday school, Bible and ArkThat’s why there is so much debate about the claims of humans causing global warming and climate change.Because it is a government contrived narrative. One sided funding. Paid bias in the research to encourage “science” to be found supporting the narrative.

Other answers here flatly ignore the Bundy side of the dispute, and promote a US Federal Government “narrative” which ignores a lot of rather pertinent facts. That is in my opinion is quite simply dishonest, and not at all answering the question asked.If you do not have some inkling as to why the Bundys did what they did, you have no business answering this question at all. That does not mean you need to agree with them — I don’t — but seriously if you don’t understand the issues, you should not write an answer.What I have seen others do is write a description of what the Bundys did, and imply the only motive was personal greed.That is just crap.Edit: I had a person saying that Bundy had not paid grazing fees for two decades. It is also true that the US Government took what is now the western USA from Mexico in 1848 (as well as ignoring claims of indigenous people) with the understanding by US citizens that the vast majority of that land would be made available for private ownership, which the Mexican government allowed. That was ~ 170 years ago. The US Government ended the homestead program, which rules were crazy impractical for the deserts of the west. Their simply is no honest reason for civil servants to control western lands as they do, and that has been going on for over 100 years.End EditThe Bundy’s and associates broad motivations and the broader political picture are relevant to the story.The question asked is why the Bundy family have a standoff with the US Federal government, to honestly answer to the question you must have some understanding of some facts, the most central of which is abusive absentee landlord role the US Government has filled in the west.Who Owns the West? Federal Lands 2014This map is a spectacular example of how data reshape public perception and knowledge. Very simple in nature it nevertheless shocks an average citizen by giving clarity to the data usually buried in obscure tables. East versus west, federal versus private, - the contrast is sharp and reverberates in the minds entangled with American history. The map achieved "viral" status in social media and keeps resurfacing into the spotlight.A more detailed map source:Printable Maps - Federal LandsAlmost all of Nevada (far more than 90%) is owned by the federal government. The US Government does not pay state land taxes, but rather makes tiny contributions to the state “in lieu of taxes”. The Federal Government in general refuses to sell any land in the west to private individuals or corporation or state governments.The Federal Government arbitrarally ended the homestead acts allowing peaceful legal transfer of land from the federal government to private individuals. The management of federal lands is abusive of the ecology, and rights of local people in the west.The Case Against the Case for Federal Land ManagementForest FiresConsider the case of the California wildfires.In 2017, 1.4 percent of California lands burned as wildland fires raged across the state, often with devastating consequences. The fire damage of 2018 was even worse.Nineteen million acres of California forests—almost 20 percent of the state's total land area—are owned and managed by the federal government. The fires are in significant part the product of past federal forest mismanagement.The Forest Service policy of total fire suppression, in place for most of the 20th century, meant California's national forests contained large volumes of kindling-like small trees and underbrush. Before the Forest Service embarked on its crusade to suppress them, frequent but much smaller fires routinely removed these "excess fuels" while leaving the larger trees little affected.Note: controlling small fires to prevent vast forest fires was the broad policy followed by native people prior to European colonization.Native American use of fire in ecosystems - WikipediaWhat was initially perceived by colonists as "untouched, pristine" wilderness in North America, was actually the cumulative result of these occasional, managed fires creating an intentional mosaic of grasslands and forests across North America, sustained and managed by the original Peoples of the landbase.[3][4][5][6][7]Radical disruption of Indigenous burning practices occurred with European colonization and forced relocation of those who had historically maintained the landscape.[8] Some colonists understood the traditional use and potential benefits of low intensity, broadcast burns ("Indian-type" fires), while others feared and suppressed them.[8] In the 1880s, impacts of colonization had devastated indigenous populations, and fire exclusion became more widespread; by the early 20th century fire suppression had become official U.S. federal policy.[9] Understanding pre-colonization land management, and the traditional knowledge held by the Indigenous peoples who practiced it, provides an important basis for current re-engagement with the landscape and is critical to correctly interpreting the ecological basis for vegetation distributionNative Americans Reveal Their Secrets To Preventing Forest Fires And MoreMany Native American tribe had actually deliberately started fires in order to free up the land for agriculture, or promote the growth of certain plants that would attract deer and other animals they could hunt.However, their occasional, controlled fires helped to clear away the brush and debris and rejuvenate the forest. By gradually clearing away flammable material on the ground, Native Americans’ deliberate fires may have prevented large forest fires like those we see today. As Dr. Kevin Ryan, a former Forest Service research put it, “Anthropogenic fire shaped North American millennia, so that many ecosystems are dependent on periodic fire.”Various tribes in the west today are capitalizing on changed laws to resume their age-old traditions and save our forests.GrazingFederal Land Management Has Been DisastrousFederal management of the West’s resources has been disastrous for decades. The impetus for the Oregon occupation is the imprisonment of a father and son for setting fire to federal lands to control invasive species moving to private lands and to help prevent wildfires, a huge land management problem in the West.Ranch Diaries: The anti-ranching, misinformed discourse around MalheurThe single most overlooked fact about federal grazing permits is that they are attached to actual property rights. Contrary to the misinformation perpetuated by phrases like “welfare ranchers,” a federal grazing permit involves much more than a low grazing fee. The most common way to graze livestock on federally owned land is to purchase a ranch with an attached permit for nearby lands. Keep in mind that anyone ranching with a federal permit owns the exclusive right to graze livestock on a certain range but must share other uses of the land because the federal government holds the title.Upon acquiring the base property and associated grazing rights, the rancher is required to sign a ten-year permit with the federal government. This contract gives the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management the authority to regulate how that rancher manages livestock on federal land. If a person purchases a multi-million dollar ranch that includes grazing rights on federal land, he or she still has to pay an annual grazing fee per head of livestock as part of the permit. It’s most similar to the maintenance fees that co-op owners in an apartment building pay as dues. They may not own the land or the physical structure of the building, but they own the right to use their apartment, according to the terms of a contract.This system is rife with abuse by federal officials, and mismanagement of resources that private owners would never tolerate, but civil servants with guaranteed pensions don’t give a damn about.

There are two types of “secondhand drinking.”The first type is universally recognized and is talked about all the time as a social problem: auto accidents, beaten wives, fights, reckless endangerment of all sorts, deaths and harms caused by poor job performance.The second type is almost never mentioned: Exposure to highly volatile alcohol fumes! Alcohol is a Class A-1 (Known Human) Carcinogen. According to Antismokers “There Is No Safe Level Of Exposure” to such a thing.A single cigarette puts out roughly 500 micrograms of about a dozen such carcinogens. (The rest of the “70” you usually hear claimed in their broadsides refer largely to carcinogens that are known or are suspected to cause cancer in hairless mutant mice with bad attitudes.)A single room temperature alcoholic drink such as a martini being sipped over the course of a single hour can put out roughly TWO THOUSAND TIMES THAT AMOUNT of “Known Human Carcinogen,” one full gram, into the air that everyone else in a bar or restaurant or around the family dinner table “is trying to breathe.” Alcohol is supposedly a relatively “mild” carcinogen, but it IS “Class A”, i.e. a “Known Human Carcinogen, the same as the dozen Class A elements of secondary smoke. And when you take something mildly dangerous and multiply it by a factor of 2,000… well… it’s something that should be taken seriously, no? At least if we buy into the story that the thing it’s being compared to is actually dangerous at the 2,000 times lower dosage.You may find this hard to believe. After all, you don’t see the “deadly” alcohol fumes and you don’t usually smell them. But it’s something you can very easily verify yourself right at home with just a minute or so of work!Get a martini glass — any glass will yield somewhat similar results but a martini is traditionally a non-iced high-alcohol drink and also has a relatively large surface area for evaporation.)Get a bottle of alcohol — preferably pure or nearly pure grain alcohol like 95% Everclear or moonshine, but 70% rubbing alcohol or Bacardi 151 Rum will produce a similar result. Regular vodka won’t work QUITE as well, but most of what’s “left behind” will be water.Pour out a good healthy short of the boozy stuff into the martini glass — an ounce and a half roughly, or 48 grams.Put the glass in a reasonably normal ventilated situation out of reach of your kids and any alcoholic kitty cats, particularly if you’re using toxic rubbing alcohol. Maybe next to your college drinking binge trophies on the mantelpiece?Check back in 48 hours.If you’ve used the Everclear or good moonshine, the martini glass will be pretty much empty. Think about where it went. Think about anyone in a room or restaurant or home or apartment building sharing the air space and being forced to breathe it in. Think about Little Donniekins or Debbiewebbie taking a deep breath as you sip your Dom Perignon after dinner and having monstrous little cancers begin growing inside of them because you can’t quit your alcohol addiction and are unwilling to just step outside, maybe back behind the restaurant in an alleyway by a dumpster, to chug your after-dinner fun.Think about how silly that sounds. But then think about how seriously the 2,000 times lower exposure is taken by city and state legislatures when banning cigarette smoking in such places and forcing smokers out by those dumpsters.The Nazis came up with the concept of Passivrauchen, “Passive Smoking,” as a way to push their late 1930s concept that the Good German owed his or her body and labor to The State and had a responsibility to keep it safe and productive by not smoking. Unfortunately for the Antismokers of that era, the Nazis lost. The closest such ally today’s Antismokers have is ISIS — known for beheading smokers in public squares.[1][1][1][1] [2][2][2][2] (If they’re in a good mood though They will sometimes take a kinder, gentler approach and simply round up “the dirty smokers” and whip them till they bleed![3][3][3][3]Today’s more standard Antismokers and Alcohol Prohibitionists are smarter than the ones back in 1918 or 1939 though: they’ve learned that prohibitions do not work without the support of a wide body of the population. The trick or question lies in how to bring that support about.And the answer is FEAR.Convince the majority of people that their lives and well-being are being seriously impacted by the inconsiderate actions of a minority, and you’ve set the stage for all sorts of prohibitions and taxations that will reduce the numbers of smokers and drinkers to the point where they can finally just be eradicated altogether in the “Endgame” scenario recently being pushed at antismoking conferences.It’s not being pushed that way yet for drinking, because drinking has not yet been sufficiently vilified in the public mind. Turn on the TV and binge-watch BONES’s 220ish episodes. Count the number of times you see alcohol products being drunk or being displayed or being talked about or advertised etc. You’ll find roughly 2,000 instances in those episodes: alcohol consumption, even by all the good medical and police guys in a series like BONES, is acceptable and almost glorified.Meanwhile, get a big notebook and keep track of the number of “smoking instances.”Heck, get a small notebook.Get a postage stamp.There are only FIVE instances of smoking as compared to the TWO THOUSAND instances of drinking. (And those five aren’t usually engaged in by the good docs and nurses: one is a skid row bum blowing himself up in an outhouse when he lights his smoke over a decomposing corpse and its fumes; another is a group of nasty smoking pedophiles living under a bridge.)Now THAT shows the “proper” way to prepare a population to fear “the effects of secondhand smoking” AND… someday… secondhand drinking.Once you’ve got the little “brain-worms” of fear nicely planted through constant repetition, the ground will be well-fertilized to grow the crop of hate, and you may begin seeing things like The Wall Of Hate aimed at alcohol rather than tobacco.If you STILL think the “effects of secondhand drinking” are just silly ask anyone over 55 or so how silly the “effects of secondhand smoking” were generally viewed when they were children.MJM, who should also point out that, in the interests of prohibitionist absolutism, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink orange juice around your kids either (much less actually allow any of them to DRINK the stuff!) Why? It contains up to 400 micrograms of deadly volatile ethyl alcohol in every liter. See: ALCOHOL IN ORANGE JUICE for more on that.P.S. Go back up to the start of this answer: the FIRST type of “secondhand drinking” is a real and valid concern, but at least here in the U.S. we have found a pretty solid “middle ground” in dealing with the problem. However, the SECOND type of concern is simply a truckload of bipolar orangutangs on meth, and should be fought against and resisted just as strongly as people should have fought against and resisted campaigns based on that type of “secondhand smoking.” If you have any doubts about such resistance I would urge you to take just a couple of minutes to read over my printable handout booklet at https://web.archive.org/web/20150412051216/http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdfFootnotes[1] Isis beheads cigarette smokers because smoking is 'slow suicide' under Sharia law[1] Isis beheads cigarette smokers because smoking is 'slow suicide' under Sharia law[1] Isis beheads cigarette smokers because smoking is 'slow suicide' under Sharia law[1] Isis beheads cigarette smokers because smoking is 'slow suicide' under Sharia law[2] ISIS Beheads Cigarette Smokers: Islamic State Deems Smoking 'Slow Suicide' Under Sharia Law[2] ISIS Beheads Cigarette Smokers: Islamic State Deems Smoking 'Slow Suicide' Under Sharia Law[2] ISIS Beheads Cigarette Smokers: Islamic State Deems Smoking 'Slow Suicide' Under Sharia Law[2] ISIS Beheads Cigarette Smokers: Islamic State Deems Smoking 'Slow Suicide' Under Sharia Law[3] ISIS arrest 50 people for SMOKING and will flog them in public[3] ISIS arrest 50 people for SMOKING and will flog them in public[3] ISIS arrest 50 people for SMOKING and will flog them in public[3] ISIS arrest 50 people for SMOKING and will flog them in public