Monthly Archives: May 2015

May 10 2015

Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate


Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate.

It seems intuitive obvious that something has been happening since 1980; maybe because the was the end of the 30 year period defining the 14.0 degree C base period when means the data tampering has to occur either before or after that period. Futher if you don’t look at the data prior to 1900 one can create the illusion of temperature movements that match increases of the CO2 levels.

My personal theory is that the Apsidal Precession of the earths orbit which reverses the perihelion and aphelion in relationship to the seasons combined with the unequal distribution of land and water create ocean currents are what drive climate. Obviously the small variation in solar flux and solar wind contribute to the observed changes that we call climate.

May 10 2015

Judge Jeanine Blasts the Media Over Pam Geller’s Event in Texas


May 10 2015

Why Temperature Fraud Matters


Anyone that follows the published NASA & NOAA data quickly finds that it is driven by politics not science. As shown in these charts the plots jump around a lot — but there is one consistency and that is period prior to 1951 gets colder and the period after 1980 gets warmer. The period from 1951 to 1980 always stays the same at zero since that is the base and it can’t be allowed change. This is proof that the numbers are manipulated. since it is the only period that never changes.

Tony Heller's avatarReal Climate Science

‘Temperature data fraud from NOAA and NASA enables the global warming scam. It can’t exist without the fraudulent claims from these agencies.

For example

ScreenHunter_9144 May. 10 08.03

(CNN) New climate change records have come along to remind us that Earth’s thermostat is steadily pushing upward.
More exactly, there are two global high temperature records and a smattering of climate change low points.

March 2015 was the warmest March since record-keeping began in 1880, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And the first quarter of 2015 was the warmest first quarter on record in those same 136 years.

New records highlight global warming’s continued rise – CNN.com

There isn’t one word of truth to this. March was about average and cooler than 1983

ScreenHunter_9143 May. 10 07.59vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta2.txt

ScreenHunter_9145 May. 10 08.08rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt

January-March temperatures were nowhere near the warmest.

ScreenHunter_9147 May. 10 08.17

The April data shows a clear cooling trend this century, despite the current El Nino

ScreenHunter_9146 May. 10 08.11

The amount of sea ice on Earth…

View original post 66 more words

May 9 2015

TIE-DYED TYRANNY


May 9 2015

PROGRESSIVISM: EMPIRE OF LIES


May 9 2015

LOCH NESS SOCIALISM


May 9 2015

THE STRUGGLE FOR STUPIDITY


May 6 2015

Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2


Interesting analysis appears to be real science! So that means no one will consider it.

curryja's avatarClimate Etc.

by Fred Haynie

I conclude that, the IPCC’s model assumptions that long-term natural net rate of accumulation is constant and anthropogenic emission rates are the only contributor to total long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2, is false.

View original post 2,592 more words

May 6 2015

Freedom of Speech: Introduction


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A lot of sophomoric trite has been uttered in the media about freedom of speech in reaction to the terrorist attack at Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, 3 May, 2015. Let’s be serious about a most serious subject.

Freedom of speech is of course a fundamental human value.  This value seems to have its home in liberal democracy. In fact, liberal democracy exalts freedom of speech over all other values. Unfortunately, the exaltation of this freedom has led to its degradation. Today, freedom of speech lacks rational and ethical constraints.  Divorced from truth, freedom of speech has become a license not only to lie but even to incite people to murder, as witness Harvard’s defense of Oxford poetaster Tom Paulin who urged that Jews living in Judea/Samaria “should be shot dead”.

To redeem and elevate freedom of speech, let’s explore its pristine origin, the Bible of Israel.

Recall Abraham’s questioning the justice of G-d’s decision to destroy Sodom:  “Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?  That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all earth do justly?”

G-d permits Abraham to question Him.  By so doing, the King of Kings affirms freedom of speech as a fundamental human right.  But clearly this right, from a Judaic perspective, can only be derived from man’s creation in the image of G-d. Only because man is endowed with reason and free will does he have a right to freedom of speech.  This right, however, must be understood in terms of the purpose or function of speech.

Speech is not an end-in-itself or mere exercise in self-expression. Rightly understood, speech is a manifestation of reason, the quintessential function of which is to communicate ideas and inquire into their truth or falsity, their justice or injustice.  Hence, speech is an intellectual-moral phenomenon.  To divorce speech from truth is to relegate this distinctively human faculty to a mere instrument of self-aggrandizement and to reject the biblical concept of man’s creation in the image of G-d.  This is the current tendency of liberal democracy, a tendency that degrades man and makes a mockery of his right to freedom of speech.

It cannot be said too often – it is hardly said at all – that if freedom of speech is divorced from truth, democracy is no more justifiable than tyranny.  More precisely, if there are no objective standards by which to distinguish right from wrong, or modesty from shamelessness – whether in speech or in behavior – then there are no rational grounds for preferring democracy to totalitarianism.

Notice, moreover, that the denial of objective moral standards does not logically justify the toleration of all lifestyles. Moral relativism undermines any objective grounds for preferring tolerance to intolerance, hence freedom of speech to censorship.

It has been said that the only rational defense of freedom of speech or of intellectual freedom is that it can facilitate the quest for truth, including the truth about how man should live.  But no such quest can even begin unless we already know, in some general and authoritative way, what is right and wrong.  Clearly, the claim to academic freedom can have no justification unless it is commonly understood that it is wrong to cheat or deceive, to plagiarize or steal, to defame or murder.  This suggests that moral relativists, who very much dominate the academic world, take civilization for granted.

The true father of civilization is none other than Abraham who, by discovering the Creator of man, discovered the moral unity of human nature.  The moral unity of human nature presupposes the rule of reason over self-regarding passions, of moral suasion over brute force and arbitrariness.  It is in this light that we are to understand the destruction of Sodom.  G-d tolerates Abraham’s questioning because Abraham’s speech is not a mere ventilation of emotion. To be sure, Abraham is the exemplar of compassion. But Abraham’s compassion is informed by truth, that is, by his knowing the difference between righteousness and wickedness.  Apart from such knowledge, freedom of speech is noise or nonsense.

–  –  –  –

To be continued

$4,800.00

May 5 2015

On Dealing with Obama?


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Let us assume, to begin with, that Islam influences Obama’s behavior.  For some observers of Islam, this assumption does not flatter Mr. Obama.

For example, Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan has said, in a derogatory sense, that Islam is not a civilization.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders agrees. He denied the existence of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West because Islam, he says, is not a civilization but a form of barbarism.

Now ponder this. That Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there is no clash of civilization in the Middle East suggests the possibility that he may harbor a fallacious hence precarious understanding of Islam, one that has induced him to engage in peace negotiations with the Islamic Palestinian Authority for more than two decades, despite the absence of any positive results, to say nothing of the terrible loss of Jewish life.

That Wafa Sultan and Geert Wilders have a more candid – I do not say clearer – understanding of Islam, is confirmed by this report of Dr. Arieh Eldad, an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel.

I was instrumental in establishing the “Israeli National Skin Bank,” which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict.

Dr. Eldad concluded his report by asking everyone to forward it onwards so that as many as possible will understand radical Islam, that this not merely a territorial conflict. [As Geert Wilders put it, “this is a  war between civilization & barbarism.”]

Now, returning to Obama, the question arises: how does one deal with an individual who has been described as an “empty suit”? Such an individual can hardly be called a real person, since he has no solid identity. He may speak like a human being, but he is just as likely to speak honestly as dishonestly, sensibly as well as foolishly – as when Obama said he was a Muslim and that America was founded by Muslims!

What such an individual says should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. One can’t safely rely on what he says as a basis for policy.  Any conversation with Obama should be as brief and as casual as possible. Also, anything he says should not only be recorded, but also witnessed, if possible, by a third party.  One must never assume that Obama means what he says and says what he means, or that even understands what he says or means – from one day to the next. This is the dilemma in dealing with an “empty suit.”

It follows that Israel must reduce to a minimum her dealings with American officials insofar as such dealings may be intersected by whatever Obama, by chance or by design, may say or do. This means that Israel should regard Obama as a punctuated or virtual enemy.