Update: The FBI and DHS are investigating today's #DDoS attack against Dyn DNS service which is getting even worse, causing more outages.https://goo.gl/bs0d17
Since Colorado legalized marijuana, it's been making a huge impact in society (and not just how you might expect)! This city made a plan for weed taxes to be used for some good, and the results were jaw-dropping! We're hoping other governments will take the same initiative- give this story a share!
(Article by: The Hearty Soul)
Formerly America's most trusted ally in Asia, this shift in alliances has happened so fast the US hasn't even reacted yet.
"We've seen too many troubling public statements from President Duterte over the last several months." http://aje.io/8wtj
s
If America is serious about decriminalizing drugs, we might want to follow Uruguay's lead. Check out ATTN:'s video on Uruguay's approach to marijuana: https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/1162057977162993/
s
After decades of passionate debate, parents probably missed the repeated admissions by drug companies and governments alike that vaccines do in fact cause autism.
CNN lied to their viewers telling them it is illegal to access and read WikiLeaks releases, and suggested the public should rely entirely on mainstream media to tell them what is in the emails.
WikiLeaks just released their newest batch of leaked emails, and they contain messages sent to and from Barack Obama prior to his presidential inauguration.
Something doesn’t add up. Check this out.
Why hasn't the Trudeau government repealed Bill C-51 yet?
Snowden claims it's the 'politics of fear'.
Do you agree?
The Guardian's video.
The Guardian
For the first time, an insect – the humble bumblebee – has mastered the complex skill of pulling string for food.
Queen Mary University of London researchers say we’re only in the early stages of understanding bee brains but that these findings make it even more important to protect them.
Aussie Chief Scientist: “We have [climate] models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult”
One Nation Federal Senator and hardcore climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts, who recently skewered TV Physicist Brian Cox on national TV, has demanded the Australian Chief Scientist provide evidence that humans cause climate change. The response so far is less than confident.
‘Most people agree that adding CO2, considered in isolation, should produce a mild warming effect.’
But we know as fact that when we burn fossil fuels which produce a variety of products,we are not adding CO2 in isolation For example, we are taking oxygen out of the system and replacing it with other gases including water vapour, and in so doing we are greening the planet and this is impacting upon both the water cycle and on the carbon cycle.
We may know the laboratory properties of CO2 under laboratory conditions, but planet Earth is not laboratory conditions.
It is patently absurd and disingenuous to talk about adding CO2 in isolation.
This why the question as to whether there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, and if so how much can only be answered by observation. Unfortunately our data is of poor quality, much of it is so bastardized as to be rendered useless, the data is extremely noisy due to the impact of natural variation and the error bounds of our data sets are large. It is for that reason that we have been unable to eek out the signal (if any) to CO2 in these data sets.
Given the poor state of our data sets, that are not fit for scientific purpose, there is no prospect in the immediate future of answering the question posed, namely the evidence of CO2 induced climate change.
I find it worrying that I keep hearing that we have to listen to the experts. I am not sure what that means as there is more than enough evidence of expert opinion being available for sale. The track record of ‘experts’ is so bad that I would want my money back if I paid out for it.
I still remember the rather sharp question that Queen Elizabeth II put to the experts at a dinner hosted by the Bank of England post the 2008 economic crisis. “Why is it “, she asked ” that none of you saw this coming?”. There was only an embarrassed silence to the quetion.
As for Brian Cox, he is a talented scientist with a gift for education. Even in his own field he will admit that the experts are frequently wrong and that questioning the data is fundamental. Yet he blindly accepts what the ‘ Climate Scientists’ are saying depite the fact that it has been shown repeatedly that the data they are using is at best faulty.
Every reasonable person understands that there are cycles in temperature and weather. It is still not understood why we had planetwide glaciation during periods when carbon dioxide levels were much higher than the current period. What I still remain to be convinced about is the position of IPCC that the warming is all anthropogenic. This is not science but religious belief.
I still remember the rather sharp question that Queen Elizabeth II put to the experts at a dinner hosted by the Bank of England post the 2008 economic crisis. “Why is it “, she asked ” that none of you saw this coming?”. There was only an embarrassed silence to the quetion.
As for Brian Cox, he is a talented scientist with a gift for education. Even in his own field he will admit that the experts are frequently wrong and that questioning the data is fundamental. Yet he blindly accepts what the ‘ Climate Scientists’ are saying depite the fact that it has been shown repeatedly that the data they are using is at best faulty.
Every reasonable person understands that there are cycles in temperature and weather. It is still not understood why we had planetwide glaciation during periods when carbon dioxide levels were much higher than the current period. What I still remain to be convinced about is the position of IPCC that the warming is all anthropogenic. This is not science but religious belief.
One point that still bugs me. Sorry I don’t have all the references to hand, but doesn’t the official “97% Consensus” as explained by the IPCC say that the man made warming started in 1950? I know there are more recent papers that try to say it started during the beginning of the “Industrial Revolution”. I know that the activists like to say that because it fits in with their obsession with dismantling western civilization and returning to feudalism.
But why do those on the skeptic side concede the point? Why argue about something that is not remotely scientific, is not in the official IPCC position, is not in the “consensus” and literally makes about as much sense as the Flat Earth society?
I can see why the activists have a problem with the official IPCC position. If the “man made warming” started in 1950, what about the cooling in the 70s? How do you explain the warming trend in the 40s that is almost the same slope as the 90s? How do you explain the “pause”? How do you answer the objection that natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is responsible for most if not all of the modern warming? It makes very little sense even to someone who has the time and inclination to study it. That is because it is based on faulty science cobbled together to prove a faulty political point.
But I wish that those like Mr. Roberts who challenge the fakers would stick to the IPCC version of the man-made warming nonsense. It is much easier to refute. It makes no sense even to those who pretend to “believe” it.
You can pull out the widely published charts and papers that provide the underpinning of the models and show them to be absolute nonsense.
All the activists really have is the models. They are based on the same assumptions as the IPCC reports. There are no new models based on “warming since the Industrial Revolution”. They are based on warming since 1950. Without the dire predictions (projections? Guesses?) of the models they have no case.
“We have models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult,” Dr Finkel said, adding that models did predict significant climate change.”
Try impossible. Climate is far too complex to predict, even if we had super computers with 100x the capacity we have today. Finding all the variables, weighting them correctly, etc. is most probably beyond the scope of human ability.
At one time, most people laughed at psychic predictions, but when we made pretty colored graphs and catagorized the predictions as “science”, people foolishly believed. Science can no more predict the future than Madame Freida in her little shop with her tarot cards and crystal ball can.
I keep asking for proof also. A lady at NASA told me that “it was not all in the same place” I said surely for the worst crises mankind has ever known you could get it in one place. She said “that’s not how science works.” I guess I will have to sue the Ontario and then the Canadian government to produce the proof that their cap and trade/carbon tax will change the climate.
Posts
You could even question if the rise in CO2 is caused by humans. Yes we have put a lot of CO2 in the air, but only half of this gives a rising level, and natural processes exhale and sink a 20 fold amount. A little unbalance in these sources and sinks would override any human source.
Look at the yearly variation in CO2 which is 2 to 3 times larger in Arctic and nearly stable in Antarctica.
It is possible to find it here, even if it not so easy: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
Summit on Greenland has a very large variation!
The alarmist Fairfax Melbourne Age Online site covered it under the tendentious heading “Schooling for Climate Sceptic” (or similar)
I was staggered at how absolutely simplistic and lacking in content Dr Finkel’s exposition was.
Most say “its CO2 wot does it” and are content to leave it at that -much the same as did Dr Finkel !
Finkel said that Arrhenius showed that CO2 absorbed and then emitted long wave radiation thus warming the atmosphere.( I know – it is better described as slowing the rate at which the atmosphere loses heat energy to space)
Finkel then described Ultra Violet light from the sun passing through the atmosphere warming the earth and oceans which release long wave radiation which is absorbed by CO2 thus warming the atmosphere
.
He then adverted to the annual growth of CO2 at 2ppm ( which he did not explicitly say but left understood was all man -made) and said 2016 would be the hottest year on record
He then concluded somewhat elliptically with “after that we have models” leaving me wondering the import of that remark.
This simplistic presentation was trumpeted by the Melbourne Age as the “education on climate change needed by” Senator Roberts.
:-
He made no mention of the claimed greenhouse effect of water vapour, nor that there is not only more of it than CO2 by a factor of ten thousand, but that each water vapour molecule has about twice the absorptive and emissive power of a CO2 molecule.
Nor did he explain the claimed forcing role of CO2 and the subsequent claimed feedback loops caused by increased water vapour etc resulting from the warmer atmosphere being able to hold more vapour which in turn has increased as it will have been released by the now warmer oceans having higher evaporation rates.
.
Also not mentioned was the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature ,with all the implications that has for CO2 emissions and the Paris Agreement targeted controlled increases in global temperature of 1.5 and 2 c ( my sub point being without positive feedback effects or with very limited such effects then those targets would seem quite reachable without the need for large scale changes in emissions)
Just one example not mentioned is the admission by the IPCC that the warming emissions from atmospheric CO2 are about 2.5 WM2 compared with solar heating reaching earth surface (I think) about 130 WM2.
their admission their models did not match observations:- ,
that there had been a long period (15 years plus) of static temperatures not predicted by their models
that their predictions of Antarctic sea ice were wrong both in size and sign, and
that they were now reducing the range of predicted temperature increases from earlier predictions or projections
However if I as a retired economist with no formal science studies at all can give what I hope is a reasonably accurate outline of the prevailing theory of enhanced global warming sufficient for the understanding of a layman, then I think it a fair question to ask why does such an explanation seem beyond our highly paid chief scientist?