…there are more than 1.8 million deceased individuals…on (US) voter registration rolls. …approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

The Global Warming Cult Insanely Compounds Its Hoax

The press in thrall

You read the news reports: the temperature records of 2014 prove that AGW, anthropogenic global warming, is a fact. The triumphalist Warmers are celebrating proof that they were right all along, and that the “deniers” are nothing but whores bought by the diabolical Koch brothers. From all points of the compass, the cry has gone up: “Gotcha!”

Well, the tumult is immaterial, for solid science is not fragile. When mocked by charlatans and loons, it loses neither objectivity nor rationality. So….

You have been lied to

The government’s report that has been widely reported as proclaiming 2014 the hottest year ever actually claims that 2014 was “more unlikely than likely” to have been the warmest on record. You did not hear about that because the print and electronic journalists never bothered to read the full text carefully. Yes, that is putting it charitably.

However, this newsletter does comfortably suggest that the report on climate was composed — crafted — to mislead folks who are less than thorough.

You can look into it. By all means do so.

Aha! As this Number goes to the subscribers: the rascals are frantically trying to pedal backwards.

A closer look

You can get some insight into the measurement of the earth’s temperature if you work your way through this discussion. An excerpt:

The most widely used metric of global warming — global surface temperatures — indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the slowdown in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.

At the very least, this should suggest that the US federal agencies NOAA and NASA are not good sources of climate information. The reason: the people who work in those offices do grasp the realities of bureaucratic/political life…and do not intend to spit into the wind.

The scientific community has produced some protests to the outrage, and you can find a great deal of information at this excellent source. Give it at least a quick glance!

Temperatures are one thing, causes another

You might have noticed that while the press was gleefully proclaiming the death of the “denier” faction, one critical point was underplayed: the cause of the claimed “hottest year”. Of course Warmers think there is no need to mention the cause, because (in their view) it’s been proved to be man’s production of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Moreover, they do not want to discuss it because that means they would be tacitly granting their opponents a point — namely, that one could question whether the actual cause of the alleged warming has been discovered. All right — but still, why not think it through? Follow this hypothetical scenario to its rational conclusion….

Assume just for a few moments that 2014 was in fact twice as hot as it was, and then consider what that disaster would necessarily mean. One would definitely want to know what caused all the heat. And as suggestions came in, one would try to make sense of it all.

If one were rational, that is.

One supremely irrational course of action would be to come up with a claim that has been not just disputed, but debunked. Well, the zealots can’t slip that past you. You know about the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide because back in March of 2010, you read Number 136 of this newsletter. It’s not on the internet, so if you want to quote that Number, or refresh your memory, here is the quintessential paragraph, along with its still-functional link:

It’s been reported here before, but it bears repeating: carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because its effects on climate diminish sharply as its level in the atmosphere increases. That means that carbon dioxide added to a planetary atmosphere that has none at all will produce some warming, but as more and more of the gas is added, the effect quickly declines to unmeasurable levels. Doubling or quadrupling Earth’s current CO2 levels would mean next to nothing in terms of global warming. Doubt it? See this superbly explanatory post that uses words and graphics to clarify the facts.

Yes, the wording of the 2010 text is not perfect, but it still communicates the essential fact. The charts in the linked article are immensely helpful.

There’s more: you also know that atmospheric levels of CO2 are no longer linked to temperature levels (refer to the crystal-clear graph here).

[Waspish aside: some of you might recall that in his celebrated propaganda film, Gore blurred the sequence of ancient CO2 levels and temperatures; he did not want to admit that first temperatures went up, and then atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose, for that would cast serious doubt on his claim that CO2 was the cause of higher temperatures. The cultists came up with some mumbo-jumbo (that reeked as if it proceeded from The Firesign Theatre) to explain the absurdity, and eventually the world just stoppped paying attention to that flaw in Gore’s fable.]

Further, as a subscriber to this newsletter, you know that Bill Nye The Science Guy shot himself in the foot when he tried to tell the kiddies how it is that bad ol’ CO2 makes it hot (here’s that humiliating link again).

Tomfoolery? Yes, and it is nothing new for the Warmers. Jim Hansen at NASA made a laughingstock of himself by demanding an immediate emergency program to reduce mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions by nine percent, when in fact the best estimate at the time for how much of that gas man adds to the atmosphere stood at approximately four and one-half percent. (The original story appeared in this newsletter’s fourteenth issue, back in June of 2008; it’s not on line, but if you request a copy, it will be e-mailed to you. Meanwhile, have a look at this link, which survives from 2008 and provides the thoughtful reader with some insight into Hansen’s authoritarian nature.)

No, you won’t accept the simple-minded claim that carbon dioxide, which is indeed a greenhouse gas, is the villain behind the fact that 2014 was so hot. You are correct to intuit the fact that the sun is the most influential element in the earth’s complex climatic system.

2014 “the warmest”? Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant

No one was able to dispute the fact that for some eighteen years, in spite of steeply rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming simply did not exist. The Warmers have always implied that unless CO2 were cut drastically, AGW would advance. Neither happened: there were no cuts, and there was no warming. But now there is a claim that a single year, 2014, could have been unusually warm, and the freak event is misinterpreted as a fully-fledged trend, the cause of which is clearly understood.

Imagine for a moment what the press would have said if exactly the reverse had taken place: imagine global warming advancing steadily for eighteen years, while the “deniers” whine and insist that it is not happening.

Now imagine that steady warming trend interrupted by a single year of slight cooling. Can you conceive of the press reporting that lone event as “proof” that AGW is not a fact, and as conclusive evidence that the “deniers” were heroically correct all along?

The point: in order to understand what is happening now, one has only to imagine the circumstances reversed. That reveals the bias and irrationality that currently shape the popular misunderstanding.

This hoax has gone on far too long

Facts are facts, and from the start, the Gore-Hansen Cult has not commanded them. The press cannot be blamed for being too busy, too beholden to the politicians, and too unlettered to deal with the (admittedly off-putting) task of vetting the hypotheses that try to explain climate change (yes, the climate is changing — it’s always changing!). And as for the government — well, its chief tasks are to control, to come up with new sources of funding, and to obey its own higher levels. That is to say, the ruling elite is not by nature a referral service that can tell you which hypotheses, theories, explanations, and claims are both valid and true. As for the academy, its members employed outside government have to worry about being shunned as intellectual lepers.

But you are not in one of those unenviable positions. You — rather like this retired glaciologist — can afford to think for yourself, and you can look things up.

Press on regardless, Pilgrims.

Links Courtesy Of The Tramp Abroad

Modern Swedish sex education for children. Something tells me this would not go over well in the USA.

You have to see this! (Ed.: In Number 365, The Tramp strongly recommended a German correspondent, Jürgen Todenhöfer. One of the man’s interviews has been taken down from YouTube; meanwhile, perhaps this video will be available to you. Do not pass up a chance to see it. The Tramp is trying to locate more of the man’s work.)

What’s this? And this as well as this?? Who could have predicted this consumer response? There must be a good reason for all those travelers to choose as they do. So much for Turkish-Israeli enmity. Life is all about business and making money, not cherishing hatred.

What’s needed are cost-effective ways to help the homeless. Here are some concepts that are not what you would imagine: One, Two, Three, and Four.

One good turn deserves another.

If I were living in Rotterdam, I would seriously consider giving this guy my vote.

Did you expect Project Blue Book would come to any other end? (Ed.: No. If Uncle Sam knows anything even remotely interesting, it always has been and always will be hopelessly beyond public access.)

When is a Xerox copy not a true and faithful copy? This has huge implications. I have heard that there are archives that have scanned everything they had and then destroyed the originals. Au weia!

Turkish satirical magazines show their solidarity with Charlie.

George Washington chopped down a tree or two to heat his home, but these days, you may not. Is that a good law?

Of Interest

This from a subscriber, who reports it was transmitted by a French company to at least some of its employees:

Warning Message from Security Team – Cyber attacks ongoing against France and “Charlie Hebdo”
This message has multiple audiences. To view audience list, click here

Further to the attacks last week in France on Charlie Hebdo – a massive cyber attack has been deployed against French administrations and companies. Thousands of web sites have been pirated and several trap sites have been identified.

We urge you to be cautious of email sent by unknown sources.

Please do not open emails from unknown senders and do not click on links requesting support or donations on behalf of Charlie Hebdo. These are fraudulent emails and websites and pose a major security threat. The only valid, legitimate and official site to support Charlie Hebdo is http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html

Ordinary Links

The Dean suggests this video. It’s a version of what happened on September 11, 2001. In this newsletter’s carefully considered opinion, there is scarcely any statement of significance in this production that is accurate, undistorted, objective, reliable, or rational; most of the film can be considered akin to the ravings of an uneducated lunatic. The NTG’s editor rates the ethical quality of the film as almost on the same level occupied by the Nazi propaganda triumph Der Ewige Jude. As a partial antidote to the toxic drivel, you can try the barely competent and incomplete Wikipedia entry. Of course not everyone reacts badly to this film — here, for example, is one instance of acclaim for the travesty (do take names as various babbling heads wax inspired by the inane propaganda).

Obama the wise? Maybe not going to Paris was the right move. If it was, he can’t very well explain his reasoning, now can he? That would be calling all those other national leaders fools.

You might find this amazing — or fascinating, or both.

Madness stalks the corridors of the White House….

For US passport holders only: how about a vac- er, brief stay in Cuba?