Tax Transcript Decoder: Fill & Download for Free

Who invented sound recording and did they think of a future where there would be speech recognition?The inventor was Leon Scott with the invention reaching back to the 1850s. And indeed, Scott not only invented the idea and actual sound recodings and patents, he also invented the idea of natural language speech recognition.“We are on the brink of more wonders. The sun paints; presently we shall organize the echo, as now we do the shadow”—Ralph Waldo Emerson, May 3rd, 1851 address at ConcordThe Ephemeral Smoke Captured On PaperFrom smoke captured in April 9th, 1857 manifested as soot pressed on a sheet of paper in a Paris, France laboratory, Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville (Leon Scott) turned a crank on a contraption he just patented called the Photoautograph autographic stenographer. As the soot covered paper moved forward on a flat sled the Photoautograph, a bristle from a hog attached to a feather lightly formed what he called a ‘voice calligraphy’ that was etched onto this smoke on paper—this was the moment that humanity captured its voice, for the first time. Scott organized the echo of Emerson and painted sound, preserved for the ages.Although Scott did not invent the concept of the Photoautograph, he made it a practical device as he moved to a cylinder feed mechanism.Specimen of an illustration of the Scott Photoautograph.The Photoautograph’s sound collection was made from a Tuba he cut to form an “air collector of sound” designed to vibrate a membrane that moved the Hog bristle to create a calligraphy of sound. Scott identified many flaws with this manual hand crank system because it was hard to have a consistent flow of movement.Specimen of a “Time-Code” by using a tuning fork of 250hz on one channel as he spoke into another channel with the consistent reference.He solved this problem by creating the first “Time-Code” by using a tuning fork of 250hz on one channel as he spoke into another channel with the consistent reference of the 250Hz frequency ever present. The Scott Photoautograph was invented nearly 20 years before Thomas Edison’s experiments with recoding on tin and wax. This was 30 years before anyone heard recorded sounds.“I want to do for sound what the camera did for light”Scott was a printer by trade and knew that the reproduction of the writings of an author was frequently distorted by the stenographers of that era as well as the penmanship of the author themselves. This was in an era before typewriters were widely available. Scott imagined capturing the vibrations of sound transmitted in the air like a photograph captured light and shadows.The camera was invented in the 1820s and in his printing business he thought of the possibilities of capturing the human voice for antiquity. The archive material for capturing these sounds from the air was paper. The waves of sound produced vibrations that he speculated could be faithfully archived and reproduced.Specimen of the voice of Leon Scott as a Photoautograph.Specimen of a Photoautograph of a guitar chord and note sequence.Scott began working on his ideas and patents as early as 1850 by most accounts. Not a trained scientist, with no university degrees or affiliations and needing to maintain a full-time job as a printer and book publisher, he had to work on his Photoautograph and voice calligraphy system when time permitted.Specimen of the 1857 Leon Scott Photoautograph patent.Scott thought of the possibility of preserving not only the actual sound captured from the air, but also the sound converted in to actual text in real-time as the name suggests, as Photoautograph autographic stenographer.Specimen of the 1857 Leon Scott Photoautograph patent showing voice sound waves converting into text.These were incredible insights in the 1850s, to faithfully archive and reproduce the actual sound and to simultaneously have a system to reproduce this archive as text. He stated:“I want to take a picture of sound waves like a photograph and match them to words so that an archive of the sound and the words contained can be preserved.”The speech problem writing itselfThis was the first time anyone suggested a practical way to perform natural language speech recognition and to begin the process of matching the analog audio waves to actual phonemes in speech.Specimen of Leon Scott’s ideas about voice sound waves to text.Scott’s ambition and motivation captivated some of the popular press at the time which gave him an introduction. With reservations, Scott presented a tax on October 28th, 1857 and went on to self publish a book that is a transcript (ironically made by a human stenographer he hired) in 1878, Le problème de la parole s’écrivant elle-même (The speech problem writing itself). In this talk he not only spoke of natural language recognition but also of voice synthesis. He was the first person to mention the synthesis of speech. He also spoke of creating signs, or words from the speech he recorded.Transcript of a translation from French of Leon Scott giving a talk at Société d’Encouragement on October 28th, 1857;FIXATION GRAPHIQUE DE LA VOIX (FIXING of VOICE to GRAPHIC)“So you see, gentlemen, here is an entirely new graphic art which springs from the heart of physics, physiology, mechanics. Men as experienced as you, and so well acquainted with the history of contemporary discoveries, will excuse me, I hope, from responding to the banal objection: ‘To what good?’ always ready to greet a nascent invention. It is, however, a question which I foresee and to which I wish to respond with clarity before finishing. Are you in a position—one will say to me—to give, without costly apparatus, without new trials, a natural stenography, immediately translatable, of speech, of improvisation? No, gentlemen, and here is why: besides being still incomplete, the trace of speech which I submit to you at this moment is the analysis of the elements of the speaking voice; it is, to avail myself of an expression of mathematicians, a function of the pitch, of the intensity, of the timbre; it is not therefore the synthesis of speech, much less a sign of pure convention like writing, which has—lest one forget—no phenomenal reality, no objective basis. Nevertheless, I believe this synthesis possible, and I propose to attempt it; allow me to add that I possess the means thereof. But, gentlemen, some great obscurities still weigh upon the history of the articulated voice; when we know clearly what this is, after a complete study of each of its elements by our processes, we will transform by mechanical means the trace of the words into a series of signs. I would rather proceed at present from the simple to the compound and achieve the stenography of song and of instruments, which will be easy with a motor of uniform motion. I solicit, gentlemen, the counsels of men competent to aid me in preparing more sensitive, less hygroscopic membranes, closer to the physiological membranes than those used in commerce; because, you know, industry does not offer fully prepared the materials indispensable to unforeseen applications. I will gladly profit also from the information of special practitioners on the questions of reinforcement of sound which present themselves as a necessity in the writing of speech.”Scott, in a few paragraphs presented the ideas of capturing human speech from the air and archiving it for the future, transcribing these wave forms in to the phonemes and in to voice calligraphy and to at some future date not only play back the recordings but to take the voice calligraphy and to synthesize a human voice with the same characteristics of the speaker and read what was captured in a synthsized voice. He was also asking for assistance in building these systems along with financial help. He presented his ideas passsioantly for this era, few could grasp the magnitude of what he had discovered and was willing to share.Scott submitted his work to the Société d’Encouragement in 1857 to be archived. They reviewed his work and found it to be interesting but stated:“Mr. Scott driven by overly vivid imagination seeks in these traces information in a higher order, he believes in these inscribed lines, is articulation. We believe he is in error”—Société d’Encouragement, Sir. 2. Vol.5, 1857Although they found the actual voice calligraphy interesting, they though his ideas on speech to text were “vivid imagination”. It would take till the 1950s for Soctt’s “vivid imagination” to be confirmed, and they used a technique that Scott described in 1857.Specimen of Société d’encouragement pour l’industrie nationale notes by Leon Scott’s ideas of converting sounds of voice into text.The Société d’encouragement pour l’industrie nationale, did show some support to Scott’s Phonautograph and felt that recording sounds with sufficient precision to be adopted by the scientific community. As a laboratory instrument they thought could it contribute to the nascent science of acoustics.Specimen of Société d’encouragement pour l’industrie nationale report on Leon Scott’s Phonautogram invention.We would have lost the actual sounds of Scott if it were not for David Giovannoni and Earl Cornell who pioneered the methods that first made Phonautograms audible [1]. Giovannoni traveled extensively to digitize the original documents in high optical resolution, after which he prepared images for eduction. Cornell converted Giovannoni's images to sound using software developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and modified for this application. Giovannoni assembled the audio files and undertook signal processing with Richard Martin, while Patrick Feaster manually corrected the time signal.Specimen video of Leon Scott’s voice, the first human voice ever to be recorded in French.However, most Phonautograms were not recorded with an understanding of the requirements of playback, and from a modern perspective their tracings are often malformed: the recording stylus left the paper, smeared its traces, marked several places at once, moved backwards along the time axis, and violated other fundamental requirements of signal recording. Berkeley's technologies failed when confronted by these conditions, and we initially feared that many Phonautograms—particularly the earliest ones—might remain permanently lost.Specimen of Leon Scott’s patent showing Phonautographic traces from 1857 and updated in 1859.Patrick Feaster devised an alternate playback approach in late 2008. Unlike the initial method, which treats a Phonautographic trace as if it was a groove in a phonograph record, Feaster's approach graphically converts the trace into a signal of varying width that can be read as an optical film soundtrack. This approach cannot correct serious malformations, but it has proven sufficiently robust to let us hear something from Phonautograms that are otherwise too compromised to process. All of the Phonautographic sound files released by First Sounds since mid-2009 have been educed by Feaster using this approach.Specimen of Leon Scott’s patent showing a Phonautograph.Just as Scott had hoped, in 2007 humans did find a way to not only create a system of recording the human voice and other sounds from the air but also transcribe voices captured from the air into actual text.Scott was not able to find investors or funding from The French Academy of Sciences or Société d’Encouragement beyond his initial work. He wanted to join Charles Cros and Thomas Edison and apply his knowledge into workable products. Edison and Cros work became well known in America and few if anyone knew of Scott and his grand vision of not only capturing voices, faithfully achieving them, but to also create a text archive to be read and reproduced and considered over time.Specimen of news clipping announcing the work of Charles Cros and Thomas Edison.Scott became depressed over the years after his 1857 talk and ran ultimately ran out of funds and support from his family for his wild inventions. As he grew older he became somewhat bitter over not being able to apply his discoveries and inventions.There is tenuous yet tantalizing clues that Scott was on to moving from a visual representation of sound to a more useful archive and playback system using the Hog bristle and membrane on a cylinder covered with hardened wax or cold bee’s honey. Using the same recording system for playback. This would have been over 20 years before Edison invented a similar system. Scott did not lack invention, just the financial support to see his ideas through to a logical conclusion. In the end he was all too human.By 1879 left with no funds and no pension, his final years was in poverty. He passed away in despair. His family with not enough money for a burial was left to present his remains to a paupers grave. In his Will he only asked to be remembered for his work.Specimen of the signature of Leon Scott.We remember Leon Scott and even though we can not find his final resting place in Paris, we can hear his voice and we can remember just how important it is to remember wisdom from the ages.Leon Scott is one of my inspirations for The Last Interface (http://TheLastInterface.com) and the products The Intelligence Amplifier and Your Wisdom Keeper. In his memory I hope that in this epoch the sum total of all your experiences can be archived and sent in to the future.Leon Scott was the first person to transcend time and space and send his voice into the future—and we remember him.Specimen of the voice of Leon Scott (too decayed to be decoded) captured in his 1857 patent produced in the mid 1850s. His first Phonautograms committed to paper.______[1] http://www.firstsounds.org/sounds/approach.php

What unpopular opinions do you have about geopolitics?First, popular and impopular are actually fluctuating trends, being in the counter culture can be more hype to be in the mainstream. French and Francophiles/phobes would know what I speak about with Dieudonné, Eric Zemour, and the like who mix antisemitism, neogationnism, civilizationnism, ethnocentrism with candor, and a touch of racism alike.About society :Genders are equivalents, but not equals. Beyond gender multiplication and fluidity, men and women deserve the same rights, with a specific mention for women about the rights related to pregnancy. They carry our future for 9 months and often take car of it for years, decade afterwards and that deserve a special treatement of favour from the societies that rely on their bellies to perpetuate themselves.Feminazism annoys me. I can’t prevent myself to dislike feminists, for it brings out of me some “masculinism” in response, and that’s quite useless. Fight for equivalence and mutual respect between men and women, and whatever gender we may imagine is totally legitimate, and I support it. Fight for equality is plain dumb, and I can’t stand it with more entousiasm that silence and sarcasms. Terminology matters. And French integrated transcription is an inane stupidity, if something is to do about French language, it’s neutralize it, not dual-genderize it. But I’d rather keep it the way it is.Prostitution should be allowed, proxenetism should be punished with life sentences. People should do whatever the fuck they want of their body, including monetize it (ain’t that most what of workers do ?). I do not like it, but I’m against criminalizing it. On the other hands, proxenets, as all Human traffickers, are the scum of the Earth and should be treated as such : no exit of prison, unless you get innocented. As for the prohibition, it’s effect is to put even more pressure and difficulties on the people who prostitute themselves by pushing them away from the light and into darkness, where predators are even worst. Good job, really, when Morality defies all sense of reality and humanity… Turning victims into criminals, and sex workers into witches ain’t really shiny stuff.Spanks and slaps on children should remain legal. But children abuse should be sanctionned more harshly. Educating a kid relies on common sense, I took some slaps and spanks when I was one, and Gosh, that didn’t kill me. My family did not abuse me, but sometimes I crossed the line and that’s it. If that comes to bruises or more, then it’s children abuse, and should remain harshly sanctionned. At the same time, these habits are not very healthy, and instead of criminalizing them, pediatricians, cognitians, linguisits and philosophers work that deconstruct the matter and ultimately promote Non Violent Communication should be widely taugth in schools, univerity, and along the life to people. Not forced upon, but taught. Let’s not teach people Non Violence by violenting them into it, that doesn’t make real sense.Adults are dumber than they know (or accept to acknowledge), and should keep instructing themselves during all their life, and be compelled to do so if they don’t through public programs. Basics in civism, citizenship, Law, economics, budget handling, ecologic reflexes, driving, and self-developpement should be part of a continuous cursus avalaible to everyone at anytime, as a part of the continuos formation of individuals all along their lives. Not on a mandatory level, but still, being encouraged.Letting people die in the streets in the winter (or summer) is not tolerable anymore, and yet it happens a lot. It seems to be common sense, but it’s not : it happens in almost every European cities, because there is not enough rooms to shelter homeless people. So I guess the cause ain’t popular enough, despite its minimal potential impact on our economies, and way of life… for the better. Why ? Would that encourage more people to stop working if they were sheltered and fed ? What a stupid argument, like anyone who doesn’t live like this right now wishes to do so… Some people in the street want to stay in it, so we’d call them responsible for their choices ? They are not, most of them just fear shelters, theft, violence. And many don’t fear it enough to stay in the cold, but come and find closed door. Are they responsible too ? This level of individualism sucks, and their is no excuse for civilized societies to not adress efficiently the matter. We decoded human DNA and sent people to the moon (allegedly ! :D), can’t we just be fucking human beings and share a bit of the collective wealth to those who are too damaged to contribute, so they can at least survive with a minimum of dignity ? You know, not being exhausted from the insecure nights, street-dirty, and having a fed belly ? Sarkozy promised that before he got elected in France, and that scumbag lied, nothing concrete was done. Shame.About politics :I’m a Statist. I believe in Statehood, in a strong State intervention into the economy, especially in the strategic sectors like the Regalias (security, justice, army, deposit-baking), transport, ressource exploitations, and to liberalism… under a certain treshold of economical activity and/or non essential activities.Nuisible businesses should be whipped, or even closed, or if not used and milked for the Greater good. Mac Donalds is trashfood, they should be forced to highly raised their standards or be closed. Cigarettes contains too much aditives, and their manufacturers are mass-criminals : these products toxicity and addictivity should be limitated to the minimum. Cannabis should be legalized and hence taxed to pay for other public policies useful to the common good.Democracy is overrated on the executive level. I truly believe into direct and local democracy for communal affairs, and to a legislature to elaborate and vote Laws. But most of countries need a Boss, and instead of masturbating ourselves on the most democratic way to choose it, we should instead raise the bar of exiged competences and expressed vision and ability to lead for one to ever be candidate. Someone gaining power while screwing the whole system being obviously deserving of a chance to demonstrate the same qualities in the country handling.Politicians wages are not high enough. Exigences on their competences and accountability neither. I would see politicians much more highly paid, in exchange for them to be actually mandated to do properly their job, and being revokable and triable in case of corruption or incompetence. I know it’s a delicate thing to put in motion, but so is raising a kid, and most of parents nevertheless do the job pretty well, even in very difficult circumstances. So why not consider to be able to achieve such Greatness on the societal level ?Military service is a good thing, non fully replacable by civic Service. it teach citizens how to defend themselves in an armed organization. Without that, People are at the mercy of professionnal armies and these who command them, may the threat be domestic, may it be foreign. Here’s a check of balance for democracy, related to the 2 previous points. If you screw up your people, said people is trained to butcher you. Power is responsability, it is not a game. And if you lead by the Glaive, you shall not be immune to its blowback.I believe in multiculturalism… on a secular Statehood and societal base, and in respect for the host society History, tradition, and civilizationnal area. Not in a full throttle multiculturalism that ignores or despises the host or abuses its tolerance : that doesnt work and it should not. It means, for France, that I’m totally open for Muslims to practice their faith at home, among themselves, and at the Mosque, and to some facilitation of their existence (adapted meals for children and in public restauration, etc). But I’m against any kind of application of a “superior” Law into our Muslim majority neighbourhoods, or any kind of political revendication of Islam into Europe. I am also hostile, for a similar reason, to any Muslim led State in Europe that would emphase the respect of Islamic rules into its civil society. Muslims World goes from Morroco to Indonesia, and that gives a lot of land to live one’s Muslim faith into an adapted political system if he can’t handle European ways, may they be Western or Eastern.Here’s for a few of my opinions about geopolitics :American policy makers devoided anti-communism into fanatic liberalism as a justification for neo-imperialism, from the toppling of the Iranian moderate nationalists in the 1950 to the actual conflict in Syria, with a long escale in Viet-Nam.A part of the West-Germany ruling elites never digested the fall of Nazism, and despite fostering a strong democracy in their country, still aimed at regaining a continental hegemony by economical ways, and contributed in such respect to the destruction of Yugoslavia by fostering separatism in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to allow themselves to take over financially and economically these mini countries, and their Balkan neighbours, and pillage from them whatever they needed, including their very blood by the exodus resulting of the 90s wars and fall of the eastern-block. It seems Nazism is back in the very walls of NATO.France and the U.K are the United State biggest lackeys, pathetic former World Powers in constant perdition of their Statehood, values, historical significance, and sovereign future (I heard that the U.K is seeing to that… ^^). Special mention for France, who still formally counts as one of the most powerful nation of the planet, and WILLINGLY use Brussel and Berlin as guideline provider and exemple to follow to justify the inane incompetence of its third grade rulers since decades. Crawling when you don’t have to is not Slavery. It’s not that extreme, but that makes it even worst, and it’s a shame.Post Cold-War NATO behaves as a IVth Reich, and supports the most extremist parties in the World to give them Statelets to rule and expend its own Power and supply chains, at the expense of legitimate countries who already paid a steep price for their very existence. Croatian nationalists obsessed by an Independent State of Croatia, Bosnian Muslims led by an ideologue, Kosovo Albanian narco-terrorists, Salafists in the middle-east and Maghreb, you name it, NATO supported them, and in the name of “Freedom, democracy, and human rights” offered that to the beneficiaries of its undeclared agression wars disguised in peacekeeping interventions :The U.N became a scam before of the United States and NATO, and is now a battleground theatre for every Superpower, that will discard it if necessary to serve its interests. International Law id dead. Good job, it took 80 millions of dead people for the World Powers to acknowledge the need of the United Nations existence and effectivity. It’s gone. Thanks Germany and the United States of America for that.The NATO support to the theft of the Serbian ethnical territories by the destruction of Yugoslavia, in Croatia and Bosnia, in which these territories were allocated to other Yugoslav republics than Serbia under the very condition that Yugoslavia exist and is a country for all Serbs, then the sanctions vs. and ultimately the dismantling of the small remaining Yugoslavia, by the forceful annexion of Kosovo by the U.S led NATO, through a unsanctionned and unammed war of agression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and finally the support of Djukanovic secessionism in Montenegro to landlock Serbia and prevent it to call to its aid a restrengthened Russia, are criminal injustices against the Serbian nation and the Serbian people, who bled in 2 World wars on the allies side and played an important role in delaying the Barbarossa operation in WW2, allowing the Russians to “welcome the Nazis” in a better configuration than if Barbarossa was executed as planned.I don’t believe in shitty mini-statelets like “Kosova” and artificial banana republics like BiH. Aside for a few Petromonarchies and European islands of prosperities, most of mini states are bound to be Slaves of greater parties, be ruled by local warlords or dictators, see their best and brigtest leave and have no purpose into the collective building of a national History, for no one gives a fuck about them anyway and they are unable to do anything by themselves or even resist to the tide of time if a bigger party is not there to pamper them. In such respect, the destruction of Yugoslavia is a school-case of the stupidity of the Yugoslav rulers, and I excuse the Serbs on this for Miloshevich, despite his numerous misdeeds, had the common sense to preach for an unified federation instead of a multispeed shitshow of various level of integration that would have led Yugoslavia to being disbanded anyway into confettis.The Balkans borders are shit, prevent these country to ever develop for there is no point for a majority of the civilian society to work hard for it because a part of their ethnics are out of their borders, or their Historical territories have been stolen, and they are now condemned to be “little States” led by corrupt people with no influence on the World, Europe, and even Balkan affairs, and a bare autonomy into the daily handling of their societies life, without greater prospect to serve or contribute to but the wealth of the Western countries, being buffer States between Europe and Russia and the Muslim World.Russian transition through a moderate nationalism has been wrecked by neoliberal policies inspired by Washington, and any money resulting of the pillage of the Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of Russia by its Oligarchs to be has been welcomed in Western banks. Putin is the fruit of this, and the current Russophobia is its welcomed consequence for NATO. The Occident have its part of responsability with the avenement of the Russian neo-boogeyman, and constantly exagerates it to make it worst.Crimea is Russia. Russia annexion of Crimea is merely a bloodless recovery of a Russian ethnical AND historical territory wrongfully stolen from Russia and given to SSR.Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, and a welcomed consequence of Western stupidity to agress Serbia in 1999 to steal its Historical territory of Kosovo and grant its control to Albanian terrorist nationalists, who were and still are nothing more than Ottoman leftovers there, and have never been able in the known History to conquer this territory by themselves nor defend it by themselves. Kosovo is Serbia. The Dombass is another problem, and I’ll live more expert Quorans to assess the wrong and right of each parties.Better a handable dictator who know how to handle his flock that the Chaos we currently see in Syria, Lybia, and probably underneath in other unstable Muslim and african countries. It is not racism, it is common sense. Most of the Muslim and african countries as we know them are recent, and leftovers of downed Empires. They need to write their own path toward their own balanced societies, in their own ways, like us European did. History is always in the making, and we nations are not all at the same stage of it. Let these People write their own future, and intervene with military only if they are too stupid to do anything else than leading their own nation or a neighbouring one to a disparition through genocide. That conservative policy would spare us millions of unwanted Migrants in Europe (flooding us for their lives at the great pleasure of Washington) that we still have to handle because we are responsible of most of these migrations.That’s all I can think about right now.

NONE THAT MATTER. This question follows a familiar and false refrain that ‘climate change’ is under human influence amenable to strategy like the deficit. This is wrong. Wikipedia gives the accepted scientific definition of climate change as follows:Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years.)It is a matter of statistics over a very long time. This means no one living or dead has every looked out their window and observed climate change as it vacillated from blowing hot to blowing cold. If you saw the impact of a hurricane, a tornado, a flood or a wildfire you could not say this is evidence of climate change unless you observed this weather for a few centuries or thousands of years and created a statistical graph showing a particular weather pattern has changed over this time.We are in the cool period of the earth’s and have been there for the last 2 million years. Will we break out and start warming again? No one can predict as the climate is too chaotic and non-linear to predict for more than a few days.Political leaders spout the fiction that humans can change the climate. They are denying Mother Nature and natural variation by making the pitch that governments need to devise a CLIMATE PLAN to deal with climate change (this plan push is a proxy for carbon taxes.) The fiction is very seductive as it also assumes there is such a thing as a STABLE CLIMATE a complete fable. All of this is anti-scientific and arrogant nonsense.There is no climate crisis over which humans have any influence and if there were Mother Nature dominates and we matter little if at all.Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever brilliantly destroys the global warming (aka climate change) scientific consensus in his Laureate speech below. He saves us from the fear mongering of Al Gore and his like. Skeptics of global warming are increasing with more than 60 other Nobel Prize winners denying human caused climate change. Demonizing Co2 is no match on its merits for the extensive peer reviewed research confirming that unstoppable solar cycles and the impact of diminishing sunspots are far more reliable answer to the mysteries of climate change.Famous British meteoroligist Freeman Dyson says Climate Change Predictions Are "Absurd""We don't only have to worry about warming," the physicist argues. "It could very well be the climate gets colder. Nobody knows"—and we waste time arguing when we should be preparing. His view in the video below is more relevant everyday as we suffer long brutal winters and no sunspots to keep us warm.Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"How have so many been misled? Media lies and misleading stories are the key culprit in my opinion. Why has the media been so far off base? Arrogant scientists with a bias are the reason.NOVA – DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE 2 HOURS ON PBSRecently a major TV program by NOVA, DECODING the CLIMATE MACHINE is a useful case study in ARROGANT SCIENTISTS and false media. The most amazing fact about the hour long show is not once did they word sun or solar radiation appear. This omission is beyond the pale as no one denies that the only source of warming on our planet is from solar radiation. The sun changes its observed sunspots and the climate follows is proven in a slew of peer reviewed research papers.THE NOVA PROGRAM PRESENTS FACTS ABOUT SEVERE WEATHER THAT ARE WRONG, FAILS TO MENTION THE SUN OR CLOUDS AS OBVIOUS CLIMATE DRIVERS AND MAKES EXAGGERATED PREDICTIONS OF SEA RISE LIKE AL GORE TO SCARE THE PUBLIC.Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”New 2015 paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather –SEVERE WEATHER STORIES AND PHOTOS DOMINATE THE NOVA PROGAM TO FALSELY CLAIM THESE WEATHER DISASTERS ARE EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.In the NOVA show the one word hoax begins with the Opening statement. I will quote from the transcript:Opening statement -Disastrous hurricanes. Widespread droughts and wildfires. Withering heat. Extreme rainfall. It is hard not to conclude that something’s up with the weather, and many scientists agree. It’s the result of the weather machine itself—our climate—changing, becoming hotter and more erraticOne little word is all it takes to turn speculation into a falsely stated pseudo-scientific claim of truth – in this case the word is is. IT IS THE RESULT OF THE WEATHER MACHINE ITSELF -THE WEATHER IS CHANGING BECOMING HOTTER AND MORE ERRATIC – NOT TRUEThe data from across the world shows severe weather is not becoming HOTTER OR more EXTREME.IPCC REPORT: EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS HAVE NOT INCREASEDDate: 08/10/18Michael Bastasch, The Daily CallerThe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’s (IPCC) newly-released climate report, once again, found little to no evidence global warming caused many types of extreme weather events to increase.“The IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to” greenhouse gases, University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. tweeted Sunday night.For example, the IPCC’s report noted that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” Pielke pointed out this inconvenient data.Much like the IPCC’s 2013 climate assessment, the new special report confirmed what Pielke and others have said for years about the relationship between global warming and extreme weatherPROGRAM WRAP UPNOVA NARRATOR: For over 200 years, in every corner of the globe, scientists have probed Earth's climate machine, developing a deep understanding of how it works.They have proven beyond reasonable doubt that climate change is happening and that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. They have built computer models that can predict the road ahead, and they have come up with ways to adapt, or solutions to avoid the worst of the impacts. But there is one powerful piece of the climate machine so unpredictable and inconsistent that no computer model could ever guess how it will behave: us.NOVA PRESENTER JOHN HOLDREN: You know, there are some people who say, "Well, the future of climate change is too uncertain to justify action today." But, in fact, the largest uncertainty about the future of climate change is what we decide to do.MY RESPONSEProof beyond a reasonable doubt is not science. Science is always tentative and open to review. Science is driven by doubt and uncertainty. The NOVA presenters Paul Douglas, Holdren and Hayhoe and others displayed an off putting and strident assurance whenever they spoke. They declined to note any possible alternative or doubt about their alarmist views – It is plain nonsense to state “scientists have proven beyond reasonable doubt that climate change is happening and that burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change.” The computer models using this fossil fuels theory of the IPCC have been discredited. This means their theory is wrong as Feynman states.Richard Feynman
‏

 
@ProfFeynman
5h5 hours ago

More


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.EDITORIALSDespite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme•1/04/2018Climate Myths: We keep reading about how the extreme weather of 2017 is the "new normal" thanks to global warming — even if the weather in question is frigid air. But the data don't show any trend in extreme weather events in the U.S. for decades. Science, anyone?The latest to make this "new normal" claim is Munich RE, which issued its annual report on the damage costs from hurricanes, floods, wildfires and the like on Thursday.According to the report, insurers paid out a record $135 billion because of these disasters, and total losses amounted to $330 billion, the second worst since 2011. It was also, the report says, the costliest hurricane season on record. And if you look at the chart in the report, it does appear that the cost of natural disasters has been on the uptrend since 1980.Naturally, climate change advocates point to this as further proof that the increase in CO2 levels is already causing calamities around the world. "As human-induced climate change continues to progress, extreme weather is becoming more frequent and dangerous," is how the Environmental Defense Fund put it.Munich RE's own Corporate Climate Center head claims that "2017 was not an outlier" and that "we must have on our radar the trend of new magnitudes."But what evidence is there that extreme weather "is becoming more frequent and dangerous." In the U.S., there isn't any.If you don't believe that, then look at the series of charts below, which are taken from government sites, that depict trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and wildfires — all of which should be, according to environmentalists, on the uptrend.What do you see in these charts. There is no trend in any of them.Look at the data on drought conditions, from the EPA. There is no meaningful increase from 1900 to 2016. In fact, the past decade has been relatively mild on the drought front, with several years below average.The same is true when it comes to tornadoes. The number of tornadoes in 2014 was below the number in 1954, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association data show. Indeed, the trend line seems to indicate that tornado activity has been lower since the mid-1980s than it was in three decades before that.What about hurricanes? Yes, this year was a bad one in terms of the number and damage caused by hurricanes. But these storms came after years of lower than normal hurricane activity, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. NOAA data show the annual Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) in each region going back to 1970.As NOAA explains "The ACE index is used to calculate the intensity of the hurricane season and is a function of the wind speed and duration of each tropical cyclone." Can anyone see a discernible upward trend in this index in the past 46 years? As with tornadoes, the index seems to have declined since the 1980s.Wildfires? Sorry, but as with the other natural disasters, there's nothing here to validate the environmentalists scare stories, either. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, there were 67,743 wildfires in 2016. That's down from more than 85,000 in 1986. By December 22 of last year, there had been about 66,000 fires, NIFC data show.The snowfall trend hasn't changed in decades, either, according to EPA data, although you'd think there'd be less snow as the planet warms. Of course, whenever there's a blizzard or a blast of arctic air — as with the "bomb cyclone" in the northeast — environmentalists start mewling about how that, too, is a sign of global warming. So if there's no trend one way or another, what does that mean?Even global temperatures aren't rising as fast as the global warming computer models say they should be, as we pointed out in this space recently.Yet despite these data, story after story continues to peddle the claim that the weather is getting more extreme, using whatever recent string of bad weather as the hook.OK, but what about the Munich RE numbers showing the continued increase in costs? That can easily be explained by the fact that the past several decades have seen increases in development and population in areas that are prone to severe weather.If a hurricane battered Florida 100 years ago, the monetary damages would be far, far less than today — even if you adjust for inflation — for the simple reason that Florida's population and its economy have exploded over the intervening years.It's also not inconceivable that Munich RE could have a vested interest in playing up the potential for climate-caused natural disasters, as a way to justify rate increases. That would present a conflict of interest that journalists — normally on guard for things — are noticeably disinterested in exploring.In any case, the question remains: If climate change is supposed to unleash waves of horrifying natural disasters as climate experts claim, why aren't we seeing any evidence of it here?https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/