Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Ball is also Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition an a Policy Advisor to The Heartland Institute. With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Ball’s comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. https://www.heartland.org/about-us/wh… The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science https://amzn.to/339qTHH Human Caused Global Warming – The Biggest Deception In History https://amzn.to/2GOHRBz Dr. Tim Ball’s Website & Blog https://drtimball.ca/ Crestone Energy Fair August 16th-18th 2019 https://crestoneenergyfair.org/ The Climate Revolution BOOK https://payhip.com/b/3sVi/af5d16bf1d8… LeakCon2019 Live-Stream Replay On Demand https://bit.ly/2TTbPIq Prepare With The Ranch – http://preparewiththeranch.com
28 February 2019
Mike Adams, Guest author
A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax.
The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering.
The paper, entitled, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world.
In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members.”Image source: DailyMail.co.uk
In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming?
By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative).
In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists.
“Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph.
“New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.”
In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Goreand the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.”
MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim: Global Warming Science is ‘Propaganda’
The Number is FAKE:‘97% of Scientists Agree on Climate Change’ is a LIE
Climate alarmists suddenly find themselves admitting they were wrong all along
“The paper … concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true,” writes James Delingpole.
He goes on to say:
One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.
He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.
Are we about to see climate change alarmists owning up to the fact that real-world data show their software models to be rooted in junk science?
The unraveling has begun, but there is so much political capital already invested in the false climate change narrative that it will take years to fully expose the depth of scientific fraud and political dishonesty underpinning the global warming hoax.
Climate change software models were deliberately tweaked to paint an exaggerated doomsday picture in order to scare the world into compliance panic
What’s clear from all this is that IPCC software models were deliberately biased in favor of the worst-case “doomsday” predictions in order to terrorize the world with a fake climate change hoax.
But now the fake science is catching up to them, and they’re getting caught in their own lies.
The software models, by the way, were fraudulently programmed with dishonest model “weights” to produce alarming warming predictions no matter what temperature data points were entered into the system.
This is best explained in this Natural News article which goes into great detail, covering the IPCC global warming software modeling hoax:
Hacking the IPCC global warming data
The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier.
The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data.
What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from Audible.com, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there.
Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models:
From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)
Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence.
The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before.
Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.
Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied.
These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.
…Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400.
Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.
Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before.
Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.
In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory.
The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey.
But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.
So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned.
It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.
…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.
For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine treesgrowing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains.
‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.
According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures.
As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.
Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture.
This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.
Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface.
It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings.
But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’.
The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.
Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect.
The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.
What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries.
As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.
Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right.
There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.
The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data.
Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent.
The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.
Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.
On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer.
The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’
But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771.
In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)
Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University.
Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics.
They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.
Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper.
But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself.
(This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)
When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.
One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated.
‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).
But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it.
As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data.
The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)
Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.
When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged.
Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44
One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas.
In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt.
When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45
In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.
Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself.
One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.
What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself.
Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?
Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history.
Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’
Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at BN.com, Amazon.com and Audible.com.
Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD
What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science.
As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.
The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.
Top Scientist Resigns: ‘Global Warming is a $Trillions Scam — It has Corrupted Many Scientists‘
The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet.
Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack.
31 December 2018
As we come the end of 2018; Lets look back.
New hope for the most water deprived
At the beginning of 2018 in Capetown South Africa the city was running of water due a drought. But there still some hope for the city is to have desalination plant built for the people in Capetown so the people don’t go thirsty. As I share this video on social media below
The people comment about desalination plant use to much energy and it should not be built. For my point of view “I value human life when there a need; we need to be sure there are met. but people who care only what use less energy rather caring about human life; they rather see people going thirty than that desalination plant to help people waters needs because desalination plant use too much energy. Just look Israel; that place was a desert and water was scared not until those desalination plant built on the shoreline them Israel became a water superpower within several years. In fact desalination plant is one the solution to our water scarcity and another reason why water scarcity should not be an issue because we live on a watery plant this video explains why below from Adapt 2030
This why there is no need for War over water; but the elite the idea of water scarcity to remain so they can make more money as well as creating wars rather than allowing humanity to overcome and solve problems and process to the level. The good news that we pretty water due to our primary water source and we have to technology to access the primary water; that something that the New World Order Elites do not want to know.
The Upcoming solar minimum and the Climate Change deception
We all know that the sun is main driver of climate change. But the Elite have agenda for a One World Government, Depopulation and remove us our land and be put a city gulag. The Elite create an idea to use weather to scare us telling us that we’re blame for; to push their agenda. The mainstream media and IPCC telling us the earth will be 2°C warmer by the end the 21st century unless we stop putting out more CO2 and stop eating meat and any other animal products.
In fact Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is plants food; Humans do need meat in their diet for nutrients to maintain their health. In fact the Elite do not want us to be healthy because healthy people are harder to control.
With the solar activity declining since 1980; during solar cycle 24 it has been the weakest solar cycle in more a century.
|NASA Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction|
With Solar cycle 24 being the weakest solar cycle in more a century and the next solar cycle being even more weaker that means we could be heading into another solar minimum in the near future. The climate will be cooler and make it more difficult for agriculture will lead to food shortage. This why it important to grow your own food and raise your animals because food is going to increase like about 5 to 10 times the current price in 2018. With 2019 around the corner with the solar cycle 24 ending and the 25th solar cycle begins likely in 2019.
I hope you people are with the oncoming solar minimum in the next decade in the 2020’s it will be more serve than the Dalton Minimum (that occur from 1790 to 1830. With Mainstream media and IPCC telling that the earth will be 2°C warmer be the end the 21st century and say that the earth is not cooling and solar minimum have no effect on human caused climate change. The Mainstream and IPCC are there to keep us in the dark and never tell us about the oncoming solar minimum or tell us to be prepare for it. So be ready of the upcoming solar minimum.
Eco Liberty possible solution to plastic pollution
Plastic first appear in the mid 1800’s; now until the 1950’s when plastic become popular and begin to part of our everyday life. But also plastic is become a issue since the 1960’s because people didn’t think the consequences on the environment until plastic became a major issue that we’re facing today. As plastic were piling up in the landfills, in our oceans, in our water ways.
Here a video about plastic and how it become part of our everyday life below
Plastic Pollution is a major to our environment; much bigger than climate change which is never an issue. The good new that; there ways to reduce plastic pollution but there is more to than just avoiding the use of single use plastic. I mean cleaning the plastic pollution in our environment. There are 3 ways of cleaning up the plastic pollution
|Recycle the plastic waste|
|Turn plastic waste into fuel|
|Use organism that breakdown plastic waste|
Yes there a future for plastic use? The answer is yes; since plastic were invented; we found that plastic to a blessing as well as a curse to us as human being. The problem we humans face. Thing is when come across a problem we also found solution. We as human we beginning to understand why plastic must to be recycle properly and why plastic can’t just be thrown away and hope it’s gone by the next day. The idea cleaning up plastic pollution need to be done on a global bases by either recycling the waste or turn it into fuel or having organism the breakdown plastic waste.
You Tube Censorship
You Tube Censorship has ramp up in 2018. I remember when Alex Jones Channel got removed on You Tube in August 2018 which been a follower since late 2010 and there something I do disagrees him on like his religious belief in Christianity and he defends it whole hearty. Another thing I ready dislike about Alex Jones; is that he is defending Israel and Jewish rights to their lands and has from little to no concern for Palestinian. For my point of view I want to be peace between Israelis and the Palestinians but Zionist they got agenda and they do not want peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
There are several channels on you tube that I subscribed that got censored and taken down like The Health Ranger, Mike Adams from Natural News which I follow regular.
Problem is the censorship on the internet that is not just just You Tube, Facebook has been censoring and banned because people political view by declare it as hate speech. Hate speech has been invented by Marxist to censor topics and words. Hate speech and political correctness is to undermine people freedom of people and people’s right to speak their mind. Reason by Marxists want to people from speaking their mind because freedom of speech of a enemy of Marxist ideology because the Marxist government fears revolt.
5G and health risks
For I for faster and better network. But people have concern of their health effect from 5G and why 5G should not go ahead unless it’s been made safe; if 5G network cannot be made safe; afraid 5G is no go. That a video below: 5G is a Sterilization & Eugenics Program ~ Deborah Tavares
That why 5G is a no go.
I start Bee Keeping
Finally my apiary is established and I have my very first beehive. After the New Year I will be having apiary registered which must to be done within 30 days since my apiary when established. I been thinking about Bee Keeping since last year back in 2017 when one my friend was planning to take up but problem is that he try to buy the cheapest beehive he can find and thinking get it even cheaper but truthfully you can only far. For me care getting started; yes I would try to get the best deal that could find locally but you got to know when to go with it. Lucky a Bee Keeper who sell Manuka Honey give me Nuc of free and I gave her a Christmas gift in a return; I couldn’t believe that why that Bee Keeping care less about money and care about me getting started; that was awesome and I cannot thank her enough. I will be a having a page about Bee Keeping to accessible sometime in 2019. But I will have photo of my first hive below.
Photo the top left is me in my Bee Keeper suit.
Photo the top right is the hive box I have brought
Photo the bottom left is the hive box getting painted
Photo the bottom right is the hive with bees in my established apiary
My 2018 Conclusion:
I know I more to say and I like to write more. I hope you have enjoy 2018. For me 2018 been a interesting year although I have some ups and downs but got through it fine; but almost given it into discourage think that “I am the only one that care humanity and thinking outside the box while people just don’t care other themselves”. I knew that I just have to keep even if I was the only human care about the future humanity. When you wake up to truth it become a journey that journey just gets better because you discover secrets to help to you become better you. Since I started Eco Liberty on wordpress it also become a journey I discover a lot interesting knowledge and secrets that I was able to found on the internet that might be useful or not. I’m going to keep on discovering post article on Eco Liberty because things are going to be more interesting as we enter 2019 and when going to happen that year. I hope you enjoy a happy and safe New Years. Any questions; leave in the comments below and I will get back to in 2019.
31 May 2012
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.
The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.
What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.
The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.
Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.
For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.
In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.
Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?
Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.
Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.
Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.
Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.
But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).
Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death.
Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun.
Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.
Eco Liberty Conclusion Although the article was written by Peter Ferrara 6 years ago but I was choose cover today; because the up coming solar minimum will prove his point.
5 December 2018
A group of Harvard scientists plans to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.
The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment(SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.
The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted spectacularly, releasing 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a blanket around Earth’s stratosphere, cooling the entire planet by 0.5 °C for around a year and a half.
Engineering A Solution To Climate Change
As scientists, governmental agencies around the world, and environmental groups grow increasingly worried of our collective ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change, the idea of geoengineering a solution has become more accepted. The ultimate goal is to reduce the warming on Earth. This can be done by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sucking CO2 from the atmosphere, or limiting the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface.
The first two methods are actively discussed and implemented to various degrees. The recent commitment of G20 members (with the United States as the sole rejector) to the Paris Agreement will act to solve the source of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sucking CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it away in Earth’s crust, called CO2 sequestration, has been implemented and deployed. For instance, Royal Dutch Shell has built large carbon sequestration facilities with the Canadian and Australian governments.
The third method, blocking out sunlight has been controversial in the scientific community for decades. The controversy lies in the inability to fully understand the consequences of partially blocking out sunlight. A reduction in global temperature is well understood and expected, however, there remain questions around this method’s impact on precipitation patterns, the ozone, and crop yields globally.
This is precisely why the Harvard research team intends to spray tiny chalk (calcium carbonate) particles into the stratosphere in a controlled experiment. Computer models can only go so far in predicting the impacts this geoengineering technique, it is time for a real world test. With funding in part by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Harvard team will begin to answer the remaining questions as early as the spring of 2019.
While the potential negative effects are not fully characterized, the ability to control Earth’s temperature by spraying small particles into the stratosphere is an attractive solution largely due to its cost. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report estimated that the continual release of particles into the stratosphere could offset 1.5 °C of warming for $1 billion to $10 billion per year.
When comparing these costs with the global reduction in fossil fuel use or carbon sequestration, the method becomes very attractive. Thus, scientists, government agencies and independent funders of this technology must balance the inexpensive and effectiveness of this method with the potential risks to global crops, weather conditions, and drought. Ultimately, the only way to fully characterize the risks is to conduct real-world experiments, just as the Harvard team is embarking upon.
I am a geologist passionate about sharing Earth’s intricacies with you. I received my PhD from Duke University where I studied the geology and climate of the Amazon. I am the founder of Science Trends, a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate.
Eco Liberty Conclusion: Sucking Carbon Dioxide (CO2) out of atmosphere will harm all plant life on earth because plants need Carbon Dioxide for photosynthesis to work. Four important element for plants to Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide and the key elements like Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) and other essential nutrients that help plant growth. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration drop to 150 ppm or below; plants growth shutdown and begin to die. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration stay at 150 ppm or below long enough this could begin forth a major extinction on earth. CO2 is life we should be rejoicing by having CO2 atmospheric concentration surpassing the 400 ppm because plants are loving the extra CO2.
That we should never consent the geoengineering program in earth atmosphere because with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) being sprayed in the atmosphere in order to stop Climate Change is just madness. We already having a lot volcanoes erupting in 2018 according Volcano Discovery website which slow all active volcanoes including the Manam which is erupting and is inject more sulfur dioxide(SO2)into the atmosphere. I don’t why those mad scientist want to engineer the atmosphere? The Sun is going into minimum phase which mean the earth is going to be cooler in the coming years this proves that the driver of climate change is the Sun; Not CO2, Not humans, Not me, Not you.
A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING
10 October 2018
- A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
- The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
- If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.
A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.
For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.
If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.
However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)
In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.
To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.
That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.
California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.
The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.
“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.
In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.
However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”
But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.
The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”
My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.
Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.
By Steinar Brandslet
The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological
“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.
The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.
Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.
Untested, uncertain, and risky
Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more CO2 by planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?
“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.
In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.
Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.
Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.
How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.
We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.
NETs and airy plans
So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.
Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.
Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.
And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.
“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.
No substitutes for cutting emissions
Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.
Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.
The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.
Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3
We had a little trouble connecting in the beginning jump to 10 minutes to heat Dr. Tim Ball. BOOM Dr. Tim Ball joins us on a journey that uncovers the heart of the globalist deception – Global Warming/Climate Change. In this first part of the Tim Ball interview your eyes will be opened to the TRUTH about the deception. It is not your fault. The hypocrisy that the developed nations used fossil fuels to improve the length and quality of life and are now denying that opportunity to other nations is egregious. What makes it worse is that we know that the development the environmentalists oppose is the best way to reduce population and the pressures it brings. I wrote about what is called the demographic transition here. This hypocrisy is throughout all the environmentalist’s actions as they live the good life while telling others to live in poverty or at best reduced opportunity. Dr. Tim Ball exposes the malicious misuse of climate science as it was distorted by dishonest brokers to advance the political aspirations of the progressive left https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Cor… This book examines the claims of human induced global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) using proper journalistic and investigative techniques. It explains how it was a premeditated, orchestrated deception, using science to impose a political agenda. It fooled a majority including most scientists. They assumed that other scientists would not produce science for a political agenda. German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls finally decided to look for himself. Here is what he discovered. Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.…scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. This book uses the same approach used in investigative journalism. It examines the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.https://www.amazon.com/Human-Caused-G… Dr. Tim Ball’s Curriculum Vitae http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ba…
Source: Can Tech Letter
Date: 4 November 2016
Author: Jayson MacLean
In a new and particularly foreboding report, the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity warns that using geoengineering to combat global warming should be considered a “highly uncertain” prospect, one whose future impact on the planet’s biodiversity is still unclear. Continue reading In the name of saving the earth: Geoengineering will be a necessary evil, says United Nations body
Main Source: Natural News
Date: 31 August 2016
Author: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) If you’re curious what real intellectual bigotry looks like, look no further than this story from The College Fix which details the anti-science absurdities of today’s bigoted college professors. Continue reading Meet the climate change bigoted professors who BANNED informed debate: Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill… NO THINKING ALLOWED