SPIKED AT FORBES: Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject

                           By Jim Lakely

NOTE: This article about 'skeptic' climate scientist Nir Shaviv was published and then quickly pulled from Forbes.com. We publish it here to save the trouble of using the Wayback Machine to read it. The Internet is Forever.

By Forbes.com contributor
Doron Levin


The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided.  Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

 “Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.  In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medicine were 100% certain that stomach resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.  Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data.  When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand.  When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds.  When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth. 

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

"All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make, he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive.

Chris Cuomo Threatens man over being compared to Fredo of the Godfather

by: Carlos Garcia


CNN released a statement in full support of anchor Chris Cuomo over a video of an altercation where he verbally abused a man for calling him "Fredo," a reference to the iconic gangster film "The Godfather."

"Chris Cuomo defended himself when he was verbally attacked with the use of an ethnic slur in an orchestrated setup," the statement read. "We completely support him."

The video, which was widely shared on social media on Monday, showed Cuomo getting agitated at a man for referring to him as "Fredo," which he claimed was an insult used against him by people on the right.

CNN released a statement in full support of anchor Chris Cuomo over a video of an altercation where he verbally abused a man for calling him "Fredo," a reference to the iconic gangster film "The Godfather."

"Chris Cuomo defended himself when he was verbally attacked with the use of an ethnic slur in an orchestrated setup," the statement read. "We completely support him."

The video, which was widely shared on social media on Monday, showed Cuomo getting agitated at a man for referring to him as "Fredo," which he claimed was an insult used against him by people on the right.

"Punk a** b***hes from the right call me Fredo," Cuomo says to the man.

"My name is Chris Cuomo. I'm an anchor on CNN. Fredo is from 'The Godfather.' He was a weak brother and they use it as an Italian aspersion," he continued.

"Any of you Italian? It's a f**king insult to your people. It's an insult to your f**king people!" Cuomo exclaims.  

CNN released a statement in full support of anchor Chris Cuomo over a video of an altercation where he verbally abused a man for calling him "Fredo," a reference to the iconic gangster film "The Godfather."

"Chris Cuomo defended himself when he was verbally attacked with the use of an ethnic slur in an orchestrated setup," the statement read. "We completely support him."

The video, which was widely shared on social media on Monday, showed Cuomo getting agitated at a man for referring to him as "Fredo," which he claimed was an insult used against him by people on the right.

"Punk a** b***hes from the right call me Fredo," Cuomo says to the man.

"My name is Chris Cuomo. I'm an anchor on CNN. Fredo is from 'The Godfather.' He was a weak brother and they use it as an Italian aspersion," he continued.

"Any of you Italian? It's a f**king insult to your people. It's an insult to your f**king people!" Cuomo exclaims.

"It's like the N-word for us," he claims.

The man says that he believed "Fredo" was Cuomo's name, which sets off the CNN anchor.

"If you want to play then we'll f**king play," Cuomo says. "If you've got something to say about what I do on television then say it."  Cuomo threatened to toss the man down nearby stairs as security swooped in and broke up the interaction.

"Fredo" became the top trending topic nationally after the video went viral on social media.

Fox News' Sean Hannity defended Cuomo in a tweet.

"I say good for @ChrisCuomo," Hannity commented. "He's out with his 9 year old daughter, and his wife, and this guy is being a jack*ss in front of his family.  Chris Cuomo has zero to apologize for. He deserves the apology."

"It's like the N-word for us," he claims.

The man says that he believed "Fredo" was Cuomo's name, which sets off the CNN anchor.

"If you want to play then w

EXCELLENT STATS ON GUN VIOLENCE

  BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED

 
 

EXCELLENT STATS ON GUN VIOLENCE

Interesting statistics!  This jives with the research of Prof. Lott at the University of Chicago, who is a noted expert on gun laws and stats.

There are 30,000 gun related death s per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So, if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assaults are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So, what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So, you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?

It’s pretty simple:  Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs . So, the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

 


 

 

PLEASE WATCH - Alphabet's (Google) election INFLUENCE

 

                                 Google's election…    How Google can move 2M votes or more 

      


                                    Alphabet's (Google) ELECTION INFLUENCE
 
Friends...if this doesn't scare you...you would have to be brain dead.

Watch this video...then forward to all you know.

The main vice of Capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity;
The main vice of Socialism is the even distribution of misery.
 
Everyone, regardless of party affiliation, should be disturbed by this testimony before a Senate committee.
  
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4808035/googles-election 
 
 

Kansas Dept of Revenue Outsourcing is Self Immolating

by Allen Williams


In early July 2019 I received a notification from the Kansas Department of revenue that I had not paid my 2018 taxes amounting to $18.00!  Yes, you read that correctly as I owed no federal income taxes thanks to the Trump tax cut but the state of Kansas still manages to squeeze out revenue from its denizens despite zero liability on one’s federal return.

I had just 15 days to respond.  If I didn’t there was a list of options the agency could choose from including but not limited to:

·         File a tax warrant resulting in a lien on your assets

·         Levy your bank accounts

·         Garnish your wages

·         Seize your property including motor vehicles, boats and recreational vehicles

·         Suspend or revoke any liquor or dealer licenses you may hold

·         Refer your account to a private collection agency and a fee will be added to your account

Tax demand notification I received

So I phoned the agency to try and clear up the matter and as expected the system is fully automated.  I was immediately dumped into the queue with seven people ahead of me.  I continued holding until I was No 5 when suddenly a connection was made and I was on the line with someone from the revenue department who identified herself as Martha.

Before I could discuss the tax problem with Martha, I had to jump through a number of hoops to identify myself with name, address, telephone number, date of birth, SS number, etc.  It was unacceptable to give the agent my case number of 0101021941463 as I could be someone impersonating me trying to claim I paid the bill or to make arrangements to pay the delinquency.  Yes, these people really are that dense.

Tax bill due plus interest and penalties

Despite my having given this woman my check number, amount and the date that payment was made, Martha wanted a copy of the check with the department’s endorsement.  All that was really necessary was to do a system search for the check number and within minutes she would have been able to ascertain its disposition.  But that assumes these people are willing to assist taxpayers as well as the preexistence of adequate department infrastructure, e.g.: (1) the department is not understaffed  (2) Incompetence throughout the department is not a factor (3) a weaponized response via political referral  or previous encounter is not a factor.

I went to my bank with the same information I gave to Martha and in about ten minutes they discovered that KS revenue cashed my $18.00 check four days after I mailed my tax return on April 11th   but then failed to record it for whatever reason.  Obviously, the department of revenue has shorted its ability to monitor payments into the system and may not have had the means to verify my payment.  This is irresponsible. But given the dismal oversight in the department, the lack of vision and the stupid political decisions, I expect things to grow progressively worse in the future due to the state’s escalating debt. 

KS Dept of endorsement on my check dated 4/19/2019

I should note that the department t of revenue would easily have accepted a second check to settle my account but due to its outsourcing tax returns likely would have resulted in the same outcome.  The agency has little regard for the people it allegedly serves.

Kansas is a small state with a population of around 2,911,505 persons as of July 2918.  The state has a myriad of debt problems between funding public education and the Kansas Public Employees Retirement system (KPERS) and is desperate for money.

Kansas agency laid off dozens of employees last year. Now it wants them back   https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article230757674.html#storylink=cpy

KDOR announced in May 2018 that it would eliminate 56 positions as part of a contract with CGI to provide professional services to operate, maintain, enhance and support the Department of Revenue’s tax systems… He said the state will own certain “deliverables” produced by CGI and reiterated that taxpayers won’t experience any disruptions.” Really? so what do you call the disruption I received from the Kansas Dept of Revenue.. an enhancement?  -  https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article230757674.html

Despite increased computer technology the Kansas Department of Revenue is a poorly managed state agency. Contracting out services with increased liability for school lawsuits and public employees’ retirement obligations is a fool’s errand and has worsened the agency’s ability to perform.

Kansas is at the center of endless lawsuits over school funding and keeping the state employees retirement fund up to date  (https://business.ku.edu/sites/business.ku.edu/files/docs/pdfs/centers/bcae/TR%2017-0901--Underfunding%20KPERS%20%28Hall%29.pdf) such that there is little money for anything else. School funding in Kansas consumes over 51% of the state’s budget and taxpayers are on the hook for some 8 billion in unfunded actuarial liability for public employees.

Kansas currently features a per capita debt higher than the US average.“Overall, the State had used debt sparingly in prior decades and was previously considered a low debt state. Now we are a moderate debt state with Moody’s Net Tax Supported Debt of $1,575 per capita. The US average is $1,473…”-  https://www.kdfa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_files/2017%20Debt%20Study%20Rev%200.pdf The media buffoons think that when a state’s per capita debt is higher than the US average, it’s a moderate debt state.

A commission consisting of four lawyers and four non lawyers selects the state’s Supreme Court justices who inure the school’s right to sue the state legislature. It’s a ‘win-win’ for special interests like Alan Rupe and associates who have made a career out of suing the state legislature over school funding.

Look for future difficulties in this haphazard agency chiefly due to good old boy politics and the state’s failure to get the Kansas Supreme court out of dictating school funding.


Will blow your mind.

 

Fast and Furious is all but forgotten in today’s news media circus but the story behind it and the implications surrounding it are not gone, the corruption is deeper than anyone can imagine and is still as strong and dangerous today as it was during the Obama rein. This is what the United States looks like when rogue government agencies, law enforcement, greedy politicians and drug lords dominate the political environment. Is this the future?

                                                                                             Knowledge is Survival

 

Fast and Furious Press Conference Live!

Multistreaming with https://restream.io/ The Public Finally Must Know the connections to the victims of rogue go...

 
 
 

Free stuff

New Bill Aimed at Big Tech

 

by Emily Jashinsky

Websites which allow users to post content are immune from lawsuits because they qualify as platforms according to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But under proposed legislation by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO, companies would lose this immunity unless they could prove to the Federal Trade Commission that their content removal practices are neutral. “This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate,” Hawley said. 

Under Hawley’s bill,” Fox News reported, “big tech firms would have to provide evidence to the FTC proving that their algorithms and content-removal practices are neutral. Tech titans would also be responsible for the costs of performing audits, and would also have to re-apply for immunity every two years.”

 READ