'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom 'safety'
Shared via AddThis
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis....
Defending American capitalism these days is a thankless job. Reckless lending by American financiers produced a crisis that has pushed the world into its worst recession since the 1930s.
Tales of greed and fraud during the boom years abound.
Small wonder that although Americans still prefer their government neat and local, they are a little less hostile to federal activism these days. Such sentiments, last November, helped propel Barack Obama into the White House and his Democratic Party to bigger majorities in both houses of Congress. As Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, says, Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis. He is using it to create a bigger role for government throughout the economy, from education and health care to banking and energy. He, and Congress, risk overreaching. America has experienced a failure of finance, not of capitalism. Its broader economy remains an astonishing Petri dish of creative destruction.
Even in boom times, 15% of American jobs disappear each year. Their places are taken by new ones created by start-ups and expansions. This dynamism remains evident today, amid the most crushing economic conditions most businesses have encountered. As icons of consumer excess like Starbucks and Neiman Marcus stumble, purveyors of frugality like Burger King and Wal-Mart prosper. Americans are adept at finding opportunity in adversity.
The simple fact of the matter is this:
“Obama is the most eloquent con artist in history. No one can say that the air you breathe is dirty and tax it better than Obama. He is capable of more destruction than Mao, or any dictator in history. And the worst part? So many are so willing to believe him.”
Tales of greed and fraud during the boom years abound.
Small wonder that although Americans still prefer their government neat and local, they are a little less hostile to federal activism these days. Such sentiments, last November, helped propel Barack Obama into the White House and his Democratic Party to bigger majorities in both houses of Congress. As Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, says, Mr. Obama does not want to waste this crisis. He is using it to create a bigger role for government throughout the economy, from education and health care to banking and energy. He, and Congress, risk overreaching. America has experienced a failure of finance, not of capitalism. Its broader economy remains an astonishing Petri dish of creative destruction.
Even in boom times, 15% of American jobs disappear each year. Their places are taken by new ones created by start-ups and expansions. This dynamism remains evident today, amid the most crushing economic conditions most businesses have encountered. As icons of consumer excess like Starbucks and Neiman Marcus stumble, purveyors of frugality like Burger King and Wal-Mart prosper. Americans are adept at finding opportunity in adversity.
The simple fact of the matter is this:
“Obama is the most eloquent con artist in history. No one can say that the air you breathe is dirty and tax it better than Obama. He is capable of more destruction than Mao, or any dictator in history. And the worst part? So many are so willing to believe him.”
national sales tax...referred to as VAT
The once unthinkable plan to create a national sales tax. In other part of the world, such as Britain, governments use this tax (referred to as VAT - or value-added - tax) as a way to capitalize on what people buy instead of what they make. But anyone who thinks this government is going to give up a tax to add another would likely be sniffing something funny. When has this government every cut back on their spending or so called services??? But for right-thinking people the notion is laughable. In fact, a couple of libs that i`ve taked to couldn’t understand what the big deal is with the concept. I proceeded to explained, “You can’t operate from the perspective that it’s their money and that they’re letting you keep some of it.”
A VAT is a hidden tax that would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. In fact, it's really a multi-level tax. Items are taxed every step of the way - from creation to getting on the market shelves. Of course, that means higher prices along the way, and taxes on top of it.
While a lot of folks in the White House might cheer the idea(of course they would, its not their money that they are taxing/spending) as something that would really stick it to the rich(HAHAHAHAHA) , VAT has been shown to be regressive, and mainly falling on the poor. On the flip side of that reality, VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Idiot libs, why dont they ever take into consideration that when they excessivly tax an item or service the 1st human response is to cut back....see gas, cigs, etc, etc.....Then they(in their perspective) lose money=raise taxes more=lose money=raise taxes more.......and on and on and on
If you walk away with anything from my tiraid, take this with you...THIS IS AN HIDDEN TAX ON ALL LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION. THE RICH HAVE SO MUCH MONEY IT WONT MATTER TO THEM, AND WITH THIS TAX, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR GET SCREWED.....
AND WHO WILL KEEP OBAMA, OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION FOR THAT MATTER FROM CONTINUOUSLY RAISING THE TAX!!!!
Its time to say to the government enough, stop, go home......get out of our lives!
Can anyone say revolution? Trust me, its coming!!
A VAT is a hidden tax that would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. In fact, it's really a multi-level tax. Items are taxed every step of the way - from creation to getting on the market shelves. Of course, that means higher prices along the way, and taxes on top of it.
While a lot of folks in the White House might cheer the idea(of course they would, its not their money that they are taxing/spending) as something that would really stick it to the rich(HAHAHAHAHA) , VAT has been shown to be regressive, and mainly falling on the poor. On the flip side of that reality, VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
Idiot libs, why dont they ever take into consideration that when they excessivly tax an item or service the 1st human response is to cut back....see gas, cigs, etc, etc.....Then they(in their perspective) lose money=raise taxes more=lose money=raise taxes more.......and on and on and on
If you walk away with anything from my tiraid, take this with you...THIS IS AN HIDDEN TAX ON ALL LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION. THE RICH HAVE SO MUCH MONEY IT WONT MATTER TO THEM, AND WITH THIS TAX, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR GET SCREWED.....
AND WHO WILL KEEP OBAMA, OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION FOR THAT MATTER FROM CONTINUOUSLY RAISING THE TAX!!!!
Its time to say to the government enough, stop, go home......get out of our lives!
Can anyone say revolution? Trust me, its coming!!
Big topic of the day is obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
While liberals are wetting themselves over the nod, the GOP already has a fight on their hands with people already swinging the hammer and sickle over the very whisper of opposition to the appointment. They seem to be forgetting that Judge Sotomayor already has issues that they can’t ignore - including her 60% reversal rate. And in a very ironic twist, the Supreme Court looks poised to overturn another one of her decisions next month - a race-based employment decision. But we’ll get to that in a minute. What was making me craziest over the appointment was that the very people that say race shouldn’t be a factor, are the same people that are going nuts over the fact that Sotomayor is a hispanic woman. Further, they want to us her skin color and gender to erase her bad decision-making skills. In fact, it could seem to some that she’d have you do the same thing.
In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better at judging than a white man. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," she said.
Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know." But perhaps more than her judicial rulings, Judge Sotomayor can expect to be asked about her temperament as a judge and about her remarks during speeches and conferences.
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary lists a series of quotes from lawyers praising her legal ability, but she also drew barbs from lawyers who said she is abusive in the courtroom: "She really lacks judicial temperament," one lawyer told the publication.
“These people are so excited about a hispanic woman being on the bench - did they forget that being a Justice is about making decisions based on what our Constitution prescribes?”
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents. As as I mentioned a moment ago court watchers are already predicting that a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Connecticut., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city. So the city discriminated against white firefighters, she voted in favor of their decision and we’re not supposed to be concerned about her judicial mindset? Okaaay.
I do have to thank the lib nominators for one thing...
She is a roman-catholic hispanic, and she is pro-life, and against gay marriage so where she has great distain for the 1st and 2nd ammendment, I forsee the repeal of roe v wade, so much thanks to you liberals!
In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better at judging than a white man. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," she said.
Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know." But perhaps more than her judicial rulings, Judge Sotomayor can expect to be asked about her temperament as a judge and about her remarks during speeches and conferences.
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary lists a series of quotes from lawyers praising her legal ability, but she also drew barbs from lawyers who said she is abusive in the courtroom: "She really lacks judicial temperament," one lawyer told the publication.
“These people are so excited about a hispanic woman being on the bench - did they forget that being a Justice is about making decisions based on what our Constitution prescribes?”
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents. As as I mentioned a moment ago court watchers are already predicting that a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Connecticut., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city. So the city discriminated against white firefighters, she voted in favor of their decision and we’re not supposed to be concerned about her judicial mindset? Okaaay.
I do have to thank the lib nominators for one thing...
She is a roman-catholic hispanic, and she is pro-life, and against gay marriage so where she has great distain for the 1st and 2nd ammendment, I forsee the repeal of roe v wade, so much thanks to you liberals!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama and his Iranian Drama
Based on hints, feints, public pronouncements, and off the record commentary, the administration's stance toward Iran is coming into focus. Without any question, military action against Iran is off the agenda. The Obama administration will do nothing to prevent the further enrichment of uranium by Iran's mullahs, notwithstanding who is elected in that nation's upcoming vote.
The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, Obama seeks a "Japanese solution," the conditions for a bomb without actually making one.
For some, this is a distinction without a difference since the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, including the lifting of sanctions, he will announce with great fanfare that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved. For keen observers of the region, it will be regarded as a "Munich peace." For others, it will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough.
In order to mollify Israeli leaders that this deal isn't threatening to that nation's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available.
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it decides to attack Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against Israel and suspending military aid to the Jewish state.
The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, is an existential threat and despite, U.S. disapproval, attacks Iran in any case. Moreover, how will President Obama react if Iran retaliates against Israel as well as shutting down the 29 mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world's crude oil is transported? Would the U.S. fight back, would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding?
Iran, which has vowed "to wipe Israel off the map," and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies would retaliate with missile launches on Tel Aviv and Haifa should any attack on Iran occur. For Israel to be even marginally successful, it must eliminate missile installations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran -- a truly formidable military objective.
Decades of appeasement and accommodations with Iran have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be attributed to President Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle. However, what distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran for regional "pacification." Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington.
Israelis may be understandably stunned by the evolution of events. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Netanyahu has responded to the emerging U.S. position by noting that he will be accommodative on any argument with the Palestinians if Obama can negate the Iranian threat. He is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, if Iran is in the position to build nuclear weapons, the weapons serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against the state of Israel since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost.
The Obama administration position is 180 degrees in a different direction. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
President Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded with his "engagement" drive that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful "tipping point," the closer Israel is to survival issues.
Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Barack Obama preparing to go one step further in downgrading the importance of Israel in his attenuated negotiation with Iran? History is waiting impatiently for an answer and the world waits with bated breath.
Thanks to Herbert London
The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, Obama seeks a "Japanese solution," the conditions for a bomb without actually making one.
For some, this is a distinction without a difference since the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, including the lifting of sanctions, he will announce with great fanfare that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved. For keen observers of the region, it will be regarded as a "Munich peace." For others, it will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough.
In order to mollify Israeli leaders that this deal isn't threatening to that nation's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available.
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it decides to attack Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against Israel and suspending military aid to the Jewish state.
The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, is an existential threat and despite, U.S. disapproval, attacks Iran in any case. Moreover, how will President Obama react if Iran retaliates against Israel as well as shutting down the 29 mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which twenty percent of the world's crude oil is transported? Would the U.S. fight back, would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding?
Iran, which has vowed "to wipe Israel off the map," and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies would retaliate with missile launches on Tel Aviv and Haifa should any attack on Iran occur. For Israel to be even marginally successful, it must eliminate missile installations in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran -- a truly formidable military objective.
Decades of appeasement and accommodations with Iran have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be attributed to President Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle. However, what distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran for regional "pacification." Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington.
Israelis may be understandably stunned by the evolution of events. They are on the horns of a dilemma. Netanyahu has responded to the emerging U.S. position by noting that he will be accommodative on any argument with the Palestinians if Obama can negate the Iranian threat. He is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, if Iran is in the position to build nuclear weapons, the weapons serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against the state of Israel since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost.
The Obama administration position is 180 degrees in a different direction. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
President Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded with his "engagement" drive that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful "tipping point," the closer Israel is to survival issues.
Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Barack Obama preparing to go one step further in downgrading the importance of Israel in his attenuated negotiation with Iran? History is waiting impatiently for an answer and the world waits with bated breath.
Thanks to Herbert London
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
SUN heats EARTH, EARTH heats ATMOSPHERE - NOT The Other Way Around
A definitive chapter on the fallacy of man-made global warming/climate change.
May 14, 2009
By Hans Schreuder
"Our understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm. Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus. When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state." Jennifer Marohasy, 2009.
After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.
"To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy." [1]
The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere - not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth, other than during short-term exceptional weather conditions such as the Sirocco winds over the Canary Islands.
Volcanoes add a small amount of heat locally as and when they erupt and sometimes may cause temporary global cooling until the ash and other material has settled back to earth. Erupting underwater volcanoes will add some warmth to the sea, but in the bigger picture, it is only the sun that adds global warmth to our planet. The atmosphere is warmed up from the heat that radiates off the surface of the earth. During the day, the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the earth and, depending where on earth you are, during the night the atmosphere will either continue to cool the earth (at the poles) or keep the earth warm (at the equator). Water vapour helps to maintain some of the daytime warmth during the night-time, the greater the humidity, the greater the capacity of the atmosphere to maintain temperature. At no stage though does water vapour add warmth to the atmosphere and neither does carbon dioxide - only in closed test flasks in a laboratory, but under no circumstances in the open atmosphere in which we all live.
Before discussing the issue of man-made global warming (AGW) or the man-made climate change, one central definition has to be stated quite clearly.
The so-called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is commonly explained as followed: "The heating effect exerted by the atmosphere upon the Earth because certain trace gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and reemit infrared radiation. [...] The component that is radiated downward warms the Earth's surface more than would occur if only the direct sunlight were absorbed. The magnitude of this enhanced warming is the greenhouse effect. Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect ..." [2]
The above definition is the accepted one by climate alarmists and climate realists alike and is the one that is referred to throughout this chapter. That definition is the "settled science" heralded by the UN IPCC. That definition is 100% wrong on all counts. [7]
"We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun." [1]
"It started with a genuine concern by senior scientists in Europe and the USA that if uncontrolled, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, could have serious consequences. It is also very important to note that global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?" [4]
"Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic "greenhouse" effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGWIAGEC assumption states that half of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface heating it up. This solitary assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes" [1]
"If there was strong evidence of undesirable changes, then the whole climate change issue would have been resolved long ago. The tragedy is that there is a world-wide policy in the opposite direction. Not only has the observation theory route been avoided, but climate change scientists and their organisations have adopted a policy of deliberately denigrating all those who practise it. Why are they following this thoroughly unethical and unscientific procedure? [...] after 20 years of massive international effort (the overwhelming consensus), climate change scientists have still to produce solid, verifiable evidence of the consequences of human activities. They have been unable to proceed beyond claims that climate change will result in the ‘intensification of the hydrological cycle' for which there is no scientifically believable evidence. Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. [4]
"[...] atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission
prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed "the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat." [1]
"It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.
Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.
To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy. We ignore history at our peril.
I await the establishment of a Stalinist-type Truth and Retribution Commission to try me for my crimes against the established order and politicised science." [5]
To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation's Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.
As a final word on the matter of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, I quote from the most elaborate and accurate scientific paper on the subject:
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." [3] [6]
With thanks and gratitude to Alan Siddons, Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf Tscheuschner, Gerhard Kramm and a score of imminent scientists and analysts across the world, without whose insight and encouragement I could not have written this chapter.
Hans Schreuder
Darsham, England
Analytical Chemist (ret.)
References:
[1] http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html
[2] http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=greenhouse-effect1 ):
[3] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[4] http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%e2%80%93-the-clashof-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
[5] Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, author of Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science (Connor Court).
[6] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
[7] Why Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere
[8] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
[9] http://www.mdgmonitor.org/index.cfm
[10] http://www.globio.info/
May 14, 2009
By Hans Schreuder
"Our understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm. Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus. When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state." Jennifer Marohasy, 2009.
After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.
"To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy." [1]
The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere - not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth, other than during short-term exceptional weather conditions such as the Sirocco winds over the Canary Islands.
Volcanoes add a small amount of heat locally as and when they erupt and sometimes may cause temporary global cooling until the ash and other material has settled back to earth. Erupting underwater volcanoes will add some warmth to the sea, but in the bigger picture, it is only the sun that adds global warmth to our planet. The atmosphere is warmed up from the heat that radiates off the surface of the earth. During the day, the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the earth and, depending where on earth you are, during the night the atmosphere will either continue to cool the earth (at the poles) or keep the earth warm (at the equator). Water vapour helps to maintain some of the daytime warmth during the night-time, the greater the humidity, the greater the capacity of the atmosphere to maintain temperature. At no stage though does water vapour add warmth to the atmosphere and neither does carbon dioxide - only in closed test flasks in a laboratory, but under no circumstances in the open atmosphere in which we all live.
Before discussing the issue of man-made global warming (AGW) or the man-made climate change, one central definition has to be stated quite clearly.
The so-called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is commonly explained as followed: "The heating effect exerted by the atmosphere upon the Earth because certain trace gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) absorb and reemit infrared radiation. [...] The component that is radiated downward warms the Earth's surface more than would occur if only the direct sunlight were absorbed. The magnitude of this enhanced warming is the greenhouse effect. Earth's annual mean surface temperature of 15°C is 33°C higher as a result of the greenhouse effect ..." [2]
The above definition is the accepted one by climate alarmists and climate realists alike and is the one that is referred to throughout this chapter. That definition is the "settled science" heralded by the UN IPCC. That definition is 100% wrong on all counts. [7]
"We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun." [1]
"It started with a genuine concern by senior scientists in Europe and the USA that if uncontrolled, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, could have serious consequences. It is also very important to note that global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?" [4]
"Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea of an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic "greenhouse" effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGWIAGEC assumption states that half of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface heating it up. This solitary assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes" [1]
"If there was strong evidence of undesirable changes, then the whole climate change issue would have been resolved long ago. The tragedy is that there is a world-wide policy in the opposite direction. Not only has the observation theory route been avoided, but climate change scientists and their organisations have adopted a policy of deliberately denigrating all those who practise it. Why are they following this thoroughly unethical and unscientific procedure? [...] after 20 years of massive international effort (the overwhelming consensus), climate change scientists have still to produce solid, verifiable evidence of the consequences of human activities. They have been unable to proceed beyond claims that climate change will result in the ‘intensification of the hydrological cycle' for which there is no scientifically believable evidence. Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. [4]
"[...] atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission
prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed "the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat." [1]
"It is human arrogance to think that we can control climate, a process that transfers huge amounts of energy. Once we control the smaller amount of energy transferred by volcanoes and earthquakes, then we can try to control climate.
Until then, climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air.
To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy. We ignore history at our peril.
I await the establishment of a Stalinist-type Truth and Retribution Commission to try me for my crimes against the established order and politicised science." [5]
To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation's Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.
As a final word on the matter of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, I quote from the most elaborate and accurate scientific paper on the subject:
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." [3] [6]
With thanks and gratitude to Alan Siddons, Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf Tscheuschner, Gerhard Kramm and a score of imminent scientists and analysts across the world, without whose insight and encouragement I could not have written this chapter.
Hans Schreuder
Darsham, England
Analytical Chemist (ret.)
References:
[1] http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html
[2] http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=greenhouse-effect1 ):
[3] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
[4] http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%e2%80%93-the-clashof-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
[5] Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, author of Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science (Connor Court).
[6] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
[7] Why Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere
[8] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
[9] http://www.mdgmonitor.org/index.cfm
[10] http://www.globio.info/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)