Randy131 Loc: Florida

Damn, well at least we'll have a respite from all the hoaxes, scams, and lies until tomorrow.

Ironic how you mention that President Trump might censor the same thing that Obama censored for 8 years, but from the opposite perspective, not allowing the truth to come out, which is now coming out by the boat load, and you want to blame it on the Koch brothers as a big conspriracy. Thousands of climate scientists are begging for discussion and debate to prove your hoax, used as a scam to elect Democrats and make rich the scientist who will lie for them to get them elected.

What are you going to tell all these scientist that are now writing reports and articles that prove "Global Warming & Climate Change" doesn't exist, and never did, but is a product of the scamming scientist changing recorded temperatures in order to prove the hoax that the Democrats use to try to get elected. Most of these scientist haven't the slighest idea who the Koch brothers are, destroying your false conspiracy theory that the Koch brohters are engineering all of the truth that is now coming out, since Obama can no longer censor it.

What really shows the truth about you is that you have no shame or regret for lying to the American people, causing them needless suffering while making your friends very rich, helping them to try to catch up with the wealth of the Koch brothers, who you and all your kind are envious and jealous of.

The Koch brothers have made their wealth, and probaly have much less than ten years to live, and the only thing that they are striving for is the betterment of the American people, which you and your Democratic buddies have been destroying through trying to make the USA another Venezuella, and take our freedoms from us as listed in the 'Bill of Rights', and enslave the American people to your will by forcing them to do things that they don't want or need, just so your kind can completely control their lives.

"Global Warming & Climate Change" is another aspect of that attempt to control the American people, by forcing on them at a very high cost, something that they can obtain at a much cheaper price, allowing them to use their hard earned money for what they want, not for your expensive energy that keeps the American people poor and depended on the government, which your hoaxes are used to make sure those running that government that everyone is dependent on are Democrats.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

What they are experiencing is this year's weather. Next year, it will be next years weather, and it will be different than this year's weather. It changes all by itself without any help from us.

Dr. Evil Loc: In Your Face

Seriously, how much of that could one take to heart?

peter11937 Loc: NYS

The stupid ant science film is indeed out and not well received as it is as big a pile as the previous film. The Sun is responsible for Earth's warming nd cooling. Not a trace gas measured on parts per million in the atmosphere .

viking747

good point. The problem doesn't happen because we left the Paris talks. The countries are not in charge of the climate. God is in charge.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

It's already a "Box Office FLOP"! People today aren't as gullible as they were when he made his first fantasy film. You guys have been caught way to many times cheating by changing the recorded temperatures in order to try to prove your hoax, and it's been so many times that most of the people are now aware of it. It's easy to see why people are so skeptical, "Why cheat, if it's really true and factual, you wouldn't need to change anything." It's hard to work a scam after you get caught cheatiing at it.

viking747

Susan, thanks you because God is in charge of the climate no matter what chalkdust has to say.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

All Christians know that GOD would never allow mankind to destroy his beautiful creation, this earth and all the wonderful life he put on it, just look at what he did to Adam and Eve for their disobedience. The Bible also prophecizes that Jesus will return before mankinds war destroys the entire earth and all life on it.

If these evil people, who think they're doing good, because as GOD prophecized that even the elect will be fooled, could get rid of all the CO2 in our atmosphere, all life on earth would die out within 5 years, because CO2 is required as an airborne fertiler for the earth's flora (trees, plants, crops, and all vegetation) which it uses to exist, and gives off the byproduct of oxygen (O), which the earth's fauna (animals and mankind) need to breathe in order to exist, and the lightning strikes all around the earth convert to ozone (O2), that creates the ozone layer around the earth that filters out all the sun's deadly rays, that if allowed to reach the earth's surface, would kill all the flora and fauna on the earth.

That is why these evil and ignorant people will not succeed in their endeavor to destroy us all, GOD will not allow it, whether it be by nuclear annilhilation, or by the removal of all the life sustaining CO2 in our atmosphere.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Damn, finally someone with some common sense! All life on earth is sustained by that trace element, eliminate it and we all die. But don't worry, it can't be eliminated, for 96% to 98% of what is introduced into our atmosphere every year is done through nature (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, forest fires, large animal herd flatulation, and the exhaling of all animal life, including mankind) not mankind, and they can't stop nature, for only GOD controls nature.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. In 2011, the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts reported that "Koch Industries and its subsidiaries emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon dioxide from 50 sites", as much as is typically emitted by five million cars.[102] A study from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University reported that "[I]n 2011 and 2012, Koch Industries Public Sector LLC, the lobbying arm of Koch Industries, advocated for the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have rolled back the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could regulate greenhouse gases."[103][104]

In 2010, Koch Industries supported efforts to roll back emission regulations in California.[

The Kochs have also funded efforts to stop the growth of solar power.[12


Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.



trump and his ring kissers have jumped for the Koch bros money pit and changed the GOP stance on GW and CC..

The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation.

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


TRUMP RULES
How Rollbacks at Scott Pruitt’s E.P.A. Are a Boon to Oil and Gas MAY 20, 2017

Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord JUNE 1, 2017

NEWS ANALYSIS
Trump, Prioritizing Economy Over Climate, Cites Disputed Premises JUNE 1, 2017

Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change Is a Hoax? No One Can Say JUNE 2, 2017
“In some ways,” he added, “it’s become yet another of the long list of litmus test issues that determine whether or not you’re a good Republican.”

Interested in Climate Change?
Sign up to receive our in-depth journalism about climate change around the world.

Sign Up
PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Since Mr. McCain ran for president on climate credentials that were stronger than his opponent Barack Obama’s, the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gases from fossil fuels to the dangerous warming of the planet has grown stronger. Scientists have for the first time drawn concrete links between the planet’s warming atmosphere and changes that affect Americans’ daily lives and pocketbooks, from tidal flooding in Miami to prolonged water shortages in the Southwest to decreasing snow cover at ski resorts.

That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.


Graphic: How Cities and States Reacted to Trump’s Decision to Exit the Paris Climate Deal
Yet when Mr. Trump pulled the United States from the Paris accord, the Senate majority leader, the speaker of the House and every member of the elected Republican leadership were united in their praise.

Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.

Government rules intended to slow climate change are “making people’s lives worse rather than better,” Charles Koch explained in a rare interview last year with Fortune, arguing that despite the costs, these efforts would make “very little difference in the future on what the temperature or the weather will be.”

Republican leadership has also been dominated by lawmakers whose constituents were genuinely threatened by policies that would raise the cost of burning fossil fuels, especially coal. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, always sensitive to the coal fields in his state, rose through the ranks to become majority leader. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming also climbed into leadership, then the chairmanship of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as a champion of his coal state.

Mr. Trump has staffed his White House and cabinet with officials who have denied, or at least questioned, the existence of global warming. And he has adopted the Koch language, almost to the word. On Thursday, as Mr. Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal, he at once claimed that the Paris accord would cost the nation millions of jobs and that it would do next to nothing for the climate.

Beyond the White House, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, held a hearing this spring aimed at debunking climate science, calling the global scientific consensus “exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions.”

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

After many repeated explanations, randy and others still are confused over the role of plants and co2...

Remember, each plant can only be enriched to a saturation point and then adding co2 has no effect.. the vegetation in our world is not having any additional good effects at present..

possibly you may not have read this excerpt from skeptical science..

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Advanced
More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.



Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Advanced
More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.



Figure 1: Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25, 2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)


Figure 2: More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15, 2008.


Figure 3: Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines
6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

susanblange Loc: USA

There will also be three Judgments by fire. The first is VWD Day when all the Messiah's enemies will be cut off. Psalm 37:20, Psalm 97:3. The second is what I call "Judgment Day" and all the wicked will be cut off by spontaneous combustion. This will affect 97% of earth's population. Isaiah 24:6. But it's a lot better than the 8 people that survived Noah's flood, it's also better than the 144,000 virgins saved in the book of Revelation, 14:1-5. The last Judgment is at the time of the death and "resurrection" of the Messiah. All remaining idolaters will also spontaneously combust. Zechariah 14:12.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Do you know what makes you so completely ingenuously irrelevant with everything you say? It's the fact that you know as well as anybody that the supporters and proponents of "Global Warming" has cheated, by rigging the numbers through changing the recorded temperatures to warmer numbers, just to back-up and fulfill their projections, and you also know of the scientific report that proves the only "Global Warming" is in the changed recorded temperatures, and if they were changed back to their actual acturate recordings, there would be absolutely no "Global Warming", yet you still spread the lies of the hoax that your kind use as a scam to elect liberal Democats, and it's all done through lies.

What does that say about you and your character? It proves that you also are a "LIAR", and that we can't trust anything you say, because it's probably also lies, just as what you support and promote in the false lies you spread about the hoax of "Global Warming". These people reading what you say should be made aware of this.

But we all will face GOD, and have to account for our lies and the harm they have done to other people, and my remittence to your lies is knowing that you shall soon be standing before GOD and making up excuses for all these lies, but one excuse about these lies that you can't claim is ignornce, as you've been told and shown proof of many times, which you ignore and refuse to accept, because you fear having to think on your own, and fall back on your indoctrination when ever the scare of having to think for yourself confronts you. That day is coming soon for you, so you better prepare, and start making up your list of excuses now.



[quote=permafrost]The Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. In 2011, the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts reported that "Koch Industries and its subsidiaries emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon dioxide from 50 sites", as much as is typically emitted by five million cars.[102] A study from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University reported that "[I]n 2011 and 2012, Koch Industries Public Sector LLC, the lobbying arm of Koch Industries, advocated for the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have rolled back the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could regulate greenhouse gases."[103][104]

In 2010, Koch Industries supported efforts to roll back emission regulations in California.[

The Kochs have also funded efforts to stop the growth of solar power.[12


Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.



trump and his ring kissers have jumped for the Koch bros money pit and changed the GOP stance on GW and CC..

The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation.

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


TRUMP RULES
How Rollbacks at Scott Pruitt’s E.P.A. Are a Boon to Oil and Gas MAY 20, 2017

Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord JUNE 1, 2017

NEWS ANALYSIS
Trump, Prioritizing Economy Over Climate, Cites Disputed Premises JUNE 1, 2017

Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change Is a Hoax? No One Can Say JUNE 2, 2017
“In some ways,” he added, “it’s become yet another of the long list of litmus test issues that determine whether or not you’re a good Republican.”

Interested in Climate Change?
Sign up to receive our in-depth journalism about climate change around the world.

Sign Up
PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Since Mr. McCain ran for president on climate credentials that were stronger than his opponent Barack Obama’s, the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gases from fossil fuels to the dangerous warming of the planet has grown stronger. Scientists have for the first time drawn concrete links between the planet’s warming atmosphere and changes that affect Americans’ daily lives and pocketbooks, from tidal flooding in Miami to prolonged water shortages in the Southwest to decreasing snow cover at ski resorts.

That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.


Graphic: How Cities and States Reacted to Trump’s Decision to Exit the Paris Climate Deal
Yet when Mr. Trump pulled the United States from the Paris accord, the Senate majority leader, the speaker of the House and every member of the elected Republican leadership were united in their praise.

Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.

Government rules intended to slow climate change are “making people’s lives worse rather than better,” Charles Koch explained in a rare interview last year with Fortune, arguing that despite the costs, these efforts would make “very little difference in the future on what the temperature or the weather will be.”

Republican leadership has also been dominated by lawmakers whose constituents were genuinely threatened by policies that would raise the cost of burning fossil fuels, especially coal. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, always sensitive to the coal fields in his state, rose through the ranks to become majority leader. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming also climbed into leadership, then the chairmanship of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as a champion of his coal state.

Mr. Trump has staffed his White House and cabinet with officials who have denied, or at least questioned, the existence of global warming. And he has adopted the Koch language, almost to the word. On Thursday, as Mr. Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal, he at once claimed that the Paris accord would cost the nation millions of jobs and that it would do next to nothing for the climate.

Beyond the White House, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, held a hearing this spring aimed at debunking climate science, calling the global scientific consensus “exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions.”[/quote]

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Randy,

Much has to be forgiven by my God, who is a merciful and forgiving God..

But none of my many misdeeds have anything to do with OPP..


As for those adjustments to temperature which bother you so much..

You should know that sattalits orbits decay constantly, this is compluted and the temp reading adjusted accordingly.

Most land based adjustments are to older methods of recording and the net effect happens to be a lower rate of global warming then using the old uncorrected data..

I know you will never accept a word I say, so I provide another article from a real sceince publication and you can call them liars also.. But they print the truth that you will never recognize ..


This is rather long, so only a small part will be posted..


ttps://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records


GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 19 July 2017 13:31
Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records


Over the past two centuries, the times of day, locations and methods of measuring temperature have all changed dramatically. For example, where once researchers lowered buckets over the side of ships to collect water for measuring, we now have a global network of automated buoys floating around the oceans measuring the water directly.

This complicates matters for scientists putting together a long-term, consistent estimate of how global temperatures are changing. Scientists must adjust the raw data to take into account all the differences in how, when and where measurements were taken.



These adjustments have long been a heated point of debate. Many climate sceptics like to argue that scientists “exaggerate” warming by lowering past temperatures and raising present ones.

Christopher Booker, a climate sceptic writing in the Sunday Telegraph in 2015, called them “the greatest scientific scandal in history”. A new report from the rightwing US thinktank, the Cato Institute, even claims that adjustments account for “nearly all the warming” in the historical record.

But analysis by Carbon Brief comparing raw global temperature records to the adjusted data finds that the truth is much more mundane: adjustments have relatively little impact on global temperatures, particularly over the past 50 years.

In fact, over the full period when measurements are available, adjustments actually have the net effect of reducing the amount of long-term warming that the world has experienced.

Raw data shows more global warming
Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time. All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a “raw” global temperature record.

The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line). The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.


So, looking at data adjustments more closely, why and how are land-based temperature measurements adjusted?

A single weather station will likely see many changes over the decades that it is in use. Few stations remain in exactly the same place over very long periods, with most stations experiencing at least one move to a new location. Most stations have also changed the way they measure temperatures, transitioning from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electronic instruments. Stations have often changed the time of day they measure temperatures, and growing cities and urban areas can introduce artificial warming in some stations. Very local factors, such as trees growing over stations or poor station siting, can also cause problems.

To correct for differences in a temperature record caused by these changes, known as inhomogeneities, scientists employ an approach known as statistical homogenization. They compare each station to all of its nearby neighbours and look for changes that are local to one station, but not found at any others in the area. Over long periods of time, climate changes are very rarely local, so localised changes not seen at surrounding stations are most likely due to something such as a station move or instrument change.

For example, if one station is warming over the course of a decade, while all the surrounding stations are cooling, that station would be flagged as “inhomogenous” and its record would be corrected to bring it back in line with its neighbours.

Conclusion
With almost 200 years of raw data to work with, adjustments are a necessary part of the methodology for scientists constructing long-term global temperature records. But most of these adjustments are small and they have relatively little impact on temperature records over the past few decades.

The most significant account for the shift from buckets to ship intakes in ocean temperature records in the 1930s and 1940s, and these changes are well-understood by scientists. And, contrary to popular belief, adjustments actually reduce, rather than increase, the amount of warming experienced globally over the past century.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Just another example of our out of control government I don't know if this story is satire or true, however it certainly exemplifies our over reaching government with insane laws!

Aug 09, 2017 Read More Articles by Ron Ewart

I keep running, but the dogs are gaining. I’ve been running for two days now and I’m hungry, tired and exhausted. I hear the hounds behind me but I must find the strength to stay ahead, always ahead. If they catch me, I might as well be dead.

It all started one Sunday when I was working one of my fields with a tractor, preparing the field for the next round of hay for the season. The exhaust pipe of the tractor was belching black smoke, as it usually did. The old diesel engine kept on chugging in a low staccato, as it always did, old reliable as it was.

I looked up and saw three official-looking black SUV’s in the distance down in the draw, coming up the gravel road that led into my isolated ranch. I knew by their speed and the dust streaming behind the trucks, that something was a foot. What I didn’t know at the time, was that I, working my land with my tractor, was that “something”.

For you see the county council got together in one of its weekly meetings and decided that in order to curb CO2 emissions from all vehicles, due to the alleged threat of global warming, they passed an ordinance declaring that Sunday was to be a day in which all citizens of the county were prohibited from running their trucks and their tractors and that only cars could be used for the sole purpose of going to and from church. No other form of vehicle transportation was allowed on that day. To violate this new law was a criminal act. If you were caught you were guilty. No due process, no trial, and no facing your accusers. You were just guilty. It didn’t matter that the law as unconstitutional.

The county council had directed that the new ordinance be posted on their website and that a small public notice be published in the local newspaper. I don’t own a computer, I don’t read the local newspaper and I had no idea that the new law even existed. I doubt that many rural landowners in the county knew as well. Nor did I know that the penalty for violating the law was criminal and included a huge fine and six months in jail. But one of my neighbors did, as you shall soon see.

Down by my ranch house the SUV’s roared in and screeched to a stop in a cloud of dust. I could see from my tractor that four hound dogs on leashes were being let out of one of the trucks. The handler looked up in my direction. Five sheriffs in uniform, the dog handler and the four dogs opened the gate and started walking across the field towards me. I had no idea what they were doing here, but I thought I would stay on my tractor, still running and wait for them to tell me.

When they finally reached where I had stopped, one of the sheriffs that was out in front, with his hand waving circles in the air, motioned for me to shut down the tractor. I ignored him. He then handed me a piece of paper. I opened it up and on the paper was a description of my violation and the penalties for it. It seems one of my neighbors had seen the smoke from my tractor and called the sheriff. The call was anonymous of course. I looked at the sheriff, who had his hand on his gun, and said, “I was not aware of any such law“. The sheriff said that ignorance of the law was no excuse and that I should get down off the tractor and accompany him to the sheriff’s office. I had but a spilt second to make a decision, go with them or run. Six months in jail and a heavy fine would break me. I would lose my farm. In an instant, I chose to run.

I slammed the tractor into high gear, the front wheels jerked off the ground and I took off towards the far fence. On the other side of the fence were deep woods that wound into the mountains behind my ranch. I heard the multiple “cracks” of a pistol and a few bullets ricocheted off the tractor. The dogs started barking furiously. But since the officers were on foot, I knew that if I could beat them to the fence, I would have time to disappear into the woods. I knew every inch of that forest and that would give me an edge, an edge I needed badly. I didn’t even stop the tractor as it neared the fence. I jumped off while it was still running, jumped the fence and ran in the direction of the mountain pass. I was sure I could lose them there.

I’ve been running for two days now and I’m cold, hungry, tired, scratched and bleeding. I can always hear the dogs in the distance, but so far I have stayed ahead of them. I know that if I don’t make it to the pass, they will have me. Just on the other side of the pass was a mine entrance and I knew that if I could reach the mine, one of the shafts would lead me to a place way down the other side of the mountain from which they could never find me. I breathed a sigh of relief as I crossed over the pass and saw the mine entrance up ahead. Finally, I would be free of the dogs. I entered the mine, hurried towards the shaft in the darkness, feeling my way and stumbled down its full length until I reached the lower entrance. I walked out into the sun, a free man, at least for now.

As I wandered along the path, I wondered how it is that a peace-loving, law-abiding farmer like myself could be in this situation, running from the law? How had our government become so out of control that they would pass laws that made no sense? What was it that we did or didn’t do that made government think that they could treat Americans in this manner? Did we not have a Constitution that granted us certain unalienable rights? Were not those rights a gift from our creator? Did not those rights shield us from government abuse and tyranny? How could government ignore the supreme law of the land with such reckless abandon? How is it that we have reached the point where neighbor would rat on neighbor? I thought of Nazi Germany. As I pondered these thoughts, I ran down the path to the river that would lead me out of the county. I vowed to find out what happened to our government and get others to help me right a situation that had gone terribly wrong. I vowed to regain my freedom and the freedom of all Americans, no matter what it took, or where the path would lead.

AUTHOR’S NOTES: If you don’t think that this kind of thing can happen, you are living in a dream world? Ask the Sackets of Idaho that got hit with a $35,000 per day fine by the EPA for trying to build a new home on their single-family lot in a subdivision of built-out homes. They had to go to the U. S. Supreme Court to get justice, but all they really got was the right to sue the EPA.

Ask the Wyoming rancher that had all the permits he needed to construct three water ponds on this own land. The EPA charged the rancher with over $16,000,000 in accumulating fines. The rancher finally won but at a terrible cost?

Ask the wheat farmer in California who has been fined $2,800,000 on a “filling-in-a-wetland” charge by the Army Corps of Engineers for daring to plow his own field, in full compliance with the law. His trial comes up this month.

Ask the hundreds of farmers in the rich California San Joaquin Valley that have been denied irrigation water because of a little two-inch fish, putting 40,000 farm workers out of work.

Ask the people that live along the Klamath River in Oregon and California. They are going to lose four dams that have provided irrigation, flood control and electricity for a hundred years because the environmentalists and the Indians again, want to protect a two-inch fish and allow salmon to run up the river free from any obstructions. How nice! Thank you judge Boldt.

Ask the ranchers living along the Red River in Northern Texas where the BLM came along and tried to confiscate their land because the river moved.

Ask the lady that owned land along the Grays River that flowed into the Columbia River when two Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife, armed with millions of taxpayer dollars for habitat restoration, came along and took out the tide gates that protected her land from river floods and rising tides. She eventually had to abandon her flooded house and land and lost everything.

Ask the man that was digging a ditch on his own land when along came a disgruntled neighbor and the local authorities that charged him with digging in a wetland that the authorities declared a wetland after the man had dug the ditch. The authorities literally created a crime out of a non-violation in order to send an environmental message to other landowners. His alleged “crime” cost him 150 days in jail and a $20,000 cash fine. It broke him.

Ask all the rural landowners of Washington State who now won’t be able to drill a well on their land due to a State Supreme Court decision brought by environmentalists. Their land is now worthless.

Every day lawmakers, at every level of government, are making laws just as insane as the one in our story. Every day, most people just ignore what goes on in the halls of local, state and federal governments. Every day that is, until one of these insane laws catches up with them and they have to choose between being caught in the enforcement of the insane law, or to run. Many stay and fight the injustice because by God they are Americans and they have the righteous right to defend themselves under our Constitution. But in the end they get run over by the law and the legal system, because government supports and defends government (and the environmentalists and the Indians), instead of government supporting and defending the unalienable rights of the people, as it should be.

You city folks may say, “what do you care if government, the environmentalists and the Indians push around a few rural landowners?” Better think again for two reasons! First, rural landowners grow and raise the food you eat. Second, just because you live in a big city will not protect you from government abuse and tyranny. It’s been happening for years. You just don’t know it yet.