Posted originally on the CTH on January 24, 2023 | Sundance
Intellectually honest observers have long realized that Antifa, as an organized domestic violence movement in the United States, could not exist if it was not supported directly or with willful blindness by the FBI. Sometimes you just have to accept things as they are, and not as you would wish them to be.
If the FBI did not support Antifa, it would be simple to target their financial mechanisms, fundraising platforms and social media networks that showcase their communications. If the FBI didn’t support Antifa, they would simply target the networks and arrest the participants for domestic terror related activity. It is not that difficult to see the FBI doesn’t do this because the FBI/DOJ support the violence.
During his opening monologue Monday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson outlines exactly this issue. WATCH:
.
RevCom (Revolutionary Communists), Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Antifa etc. it’s all one long continuum of the same participants. However, in order to accept the ideology that surrounds it, the complicit media and U.S. justice system must pretend not to know things.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on January 19, 2023 | Sundance
Lots of people are talking about U.S. FBI Director Christopher Wray discussing the agencies “partnership with the private sector” as it relates to modern FBI activity. However, I’m just that random oddball in the crowd who just wants to point out something, well, kind of a big picture issue.
I notice in all of the discussions surrounding the FBI activity, and there are a lot of discussions – including admissions and outlines from the FBI itself, there appears to be an element of the subject matter being overlooked. Here’s a segment from Wray at the World Economic Forum {Direct Rumble Link} as a precursor to what few are noticing. WATCH:
The FBI is a criminal investigative agency. Meaning, a crime is committed, and the FBI mission is to investigate it, solve it, and bring the information to the justice department for pursuit. At least that was the customary role of the FBI as it was/is commonly discussed.
However, please note that in Director Wray’s remarks, every element of the FBI mission is framed around “prevention” of criminal activity, or what we would call pre-crimes.
Stop for a moment and rewatch it if needed, you’ll see what I am talking about.
Um, please excuse my interruption.
While it might seem like an unusual thing to notice, this is not a small issue.
In the era following the 9-11 attacks, there was public outcry around the issue of “how” and “why” did law enforcement, specifically the FBI, not PREVENT the attack. In just about every conversation following the attack every framework was about how to prevent an attack.
The 9-11 commission itself was focused on learning lessons from the attack; thereby the direct and implicit message was to construct systems to prevent another attack from happening. Essentially to move the FBI from a reactive footing in the aftermath of a crime, to a proactive footing to prevent crime.
Now, what I am asking readers to do is to realize when the fundamental mission of an investigative agency changes from investigating the aftermath of criminal activity, to the prevention of criminal activity, we as a society open ourselves up to having severe restrictions on our liberty. After all, just about everything that we now see as an infringement on freedom, is some form of a proactive action by government.
Change the mission from the investigation of crime to the prevention of crime, and the entire apparatus of the mission fundamentally changes.
Criminals are no longer the target when you are preventing crimes. Criminals are only targets in the aftermath of crime. When you are preventing crime, everyone that could commit a crime is the new mission target. Everyone, regardless of their connection to – or association with – criminal activity, is now a potential criminal. Potential criminals must be monitored.
Potential criminals are now the target. You are a potential criminal. As a result of your potential ability, you are a target for pre-crime investigation. Within the process of pre-crime investigation, your archaic views of freedom and liberty are dispatched.
The office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to turn the terrorist radar internally. Every American is now a potential “domestic terrorist.” Thus, you see FBI Director Christopher Wray sitting on a stage and openly admitting the FBI partnerships with the private sector are key to the mission; a mission of pre-crime targeting.
Can you see how this rolls along?…
As soon as the FBI changes from investigating the aftermath of a crime committed to intercepting the potential criminal conduct, things get very opaque, sketchy and weird. When the FBI is investigating crimes, you have rights. When the FBI is preventing crimes, those rights are impediments.
Our entire legal system is structured around criminal accountability. An event takes place, and we hold the criminal accountable. Judges, lawyers, courts, systems, processes, protections, rights of the accused, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, etc. etc. Hundreds of years of rules and regulations within a criminal justice system.
We do not have a “pre-crime” justice system.
The current FBI mission is pre-crime enforcement.
Think about the ramifications; it shouldn’t be hard, because we are living them.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2023 | sundance
I get a lot of flak for saying Texas is the next Georgia when it comes to professional politics and the ideological shift from Red to Blue. However, the grief matters not, because the reality of Texas turning left is very real even if Texans don’t want to admit it; here’s yet another datapoint. The only two GOP congressmen who did not support the reformed rules package were both from Texas. Representative Tony Gonzales voted against it, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, did not vote.
Overall, the House of Representatives passed the rules package Monday night 220-213 with relatively little drama. It was the first order of business for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s new majority on the first day of the 118th legislative session. The 55-page package includes most of the concessions McCarthy made to the conservative caucus.
The new rules include the motion to vacate provision, allowing just one member to make a motion to remove the House speaker – one of the top conservative demands that will keep McCarthy in check.
WASHINGTON DC – The House rules plan that amounted to Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s first legislative victory on Monday night brings much bigger consequences than 55 pages suggest — it will shape the chamber’s operations and what bills can win approval over the next two years.
Adoption of the rules package is a routine step in setting up any new Congress, but what is traditionally seen as a “housekeeping” issue will effectively determine how Republicans can govern the chamber. That’s why the rules measure was the centerpiece of high-stakes negotiations between McCarthy and the crop of rebellious conservatives who kept from the gavel for much of last week, talks that started just after the House was called for Republicans in November.
[…] At the heart of the rules push by rank-and-file conservatives, including many in the Freedom Caucus, is a desire to shape a more inclusive legislative process that concentrates less power with leadership. To that end, they have secured promises from leaders that aren’t formally written down in the rules, such as allowing more amendments to be considered on the floor and more widely distributing committee positions. (more)
We have a few more election cycles to stop the arc of history from repeating itself. However, it is best to be prepared just in case…. Because if the slow descent into controlled chaos and big government dependency continues, the more self-sufficient you are – the longer you will be able to retain a freedom lifestyle of familiar reference.
Stay gray and remember, the potato alliance grows underground and gains multiple eyes in sunlight.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2023 | sundance
The House of Representatives is in current session to debate and confirm the new House rules package. The rules were a point of contention for some conservative House members, who initially refused to vote for Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker until the California Republican made concessions in order to win the gavel. [Livestream Video Below]
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty: Self-Spreading Vaccines, Transhumanist Ideology, and Government Gag Orders—The New Technocracy Threatening Hippocratic Medicine and the Nuremberg Code
This speech by Congressman Matt Gaetz is actually very important. Listen carefully to what he is saying – he and others will not vote for this “uni-party” candidate Kevin McCarthy from California. I cannot emphasize more that what he is talking about is what I have been writing about for a long time.
John McCain would have voted for Hillary before Trump because they are all the same – they protect the SWAMP. The battle is not as fierce between the Republicans and Democrats as it often appears. Both sides like things the way they are. Kevin McCarthy would simply be another Pelosi. There really would be no difference. This is why we must simply Crash & Burn. Politics is hopeless. The corruption has eaten away everything from the inside out. Gaetz is correct for they call it on the Hill the “uni-party” where it is not for the people, but for maintaining power.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 28, 2022 | Sundance
China has loosened travel restrictions internally. As a result, there has been an uptick in COVID-19 infections throughout China. Along with the loosened domestic travel restrictions, many Chinese are booking flights out of the country.
Despite previously accusing the Trump administration of promoting ‘Asian hate‘ and xenophobia, the Biden CDC is now requiring travelers from China to provide evidence of a negative COVID test prior to travel to the U.S, and entry into the United States.
(Via Axios) – The United States will require travelers from China to show a negative COVID-19 test result before flying to the country amid China’s recent uptick in cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday.
The big picture: The CDC’s decision comes amid a surge in COVID-19 cases in China, which recently loosened its travel restrictions and opened its borders for overseas travel.
The CDC said it is mainly concerned about slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. The agency also wants to prevent any variants of concern from leaking into the country.
Details: Starting Jan. 5 at 12:01 a.m. ET, all passengers from China who are 2 years old and older will need to receive a negative PCR or antigen self-test no more than 2 days before their departure from China, Hong Kong or Macau, per the CDC.
This applies regardless of nationality or vaccination status, the CDC said. It also applies to travelers traveling from China via a third country, or those who are connecting through the United States to another country. Airlines will need to confirm the negative test result for all passengers before they board. Otherwise, they can deny boarding for the traveler, per the CDC.
Context: People in China — who were under heavy COVID travel restrictions until earlier this month — have been flocking out of the country. Air travel ticket sales have soared since China eliminated quarantines and testing requirements for travelers into the country. (more)
In response to reviewers’ comments on a paper John Christy and I submitted regarding the impact of El Nino and La Nina on climate sensitivity estimates, I decided to change the focus enough to require a total re-write of the paper.
The paper now addresses the question: If we take all of the various surface and sub-surface temperature datasets and their differing estimates of warming over the last 50 years, what does it imply for climate sensitivity?
The trouble with estimating climate sensitivity from observational data is that, even if the temperature observations were globally complete and error-free, you still have to know pretty accurately what the “forcing” was that caused the temperature change.
(Yes, I know some of you don’t like the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change. Feel free to ignore this post if it bothers you.)
As a reminder, all temperature change in an object or system is due to an imbalance between rates of energy gained and energy lost, and the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance. Yes, I know (and agree) that this assumption cannot be demonstrated to be strictly true, as events like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age can attest.
But for the purpose of demonstration, let’s assume it’s true in today’s climate system, and that the only thing causing recent warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (mainly CO2). Does the current rate of warming suggest (as we are told) that a global warming disaster is upon us? I think this is an important question to address, separate from the question of whether some of the recent warming is natural (which would make AGW even less of a problem).
Lewis and Curry (most recently in 2018) addressed the ECS question in a similar manner by comparing temperatures and radiative forcing estimates between the late 1800s and early 2000s, and got answers somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C of eventual warming from a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration (2XCO2). These estimates are considerably lower than what the IPCC claims from (mostly) climate model projections.
Our approach is somewhat different from Lewis & Curry. First, we use only data from the most recent 50 years (1970-2021), which is the period of most rapid growth in CO2-caused forcing, the period of most rapid temperature rise, and about as far back as one can go and talk with any confidence about ocean heat content (a very important variable in climate sensitivity estimates).
Secondly, our model is time-dependent, with monthly time resolution, allowing us to examine (for instance) the recent acceleration in deep ocean temperature (ocean heat content) rise.
In contrast to Lewis & Curry and differencing two time periods’ averages separated by 100+ years, our approach is to use a time-dependent model of vertical energy flows, which I have blogged on before. It is run at monthly time resolution, so allows examination of such issues as the recent acceleration of the increase in oceanic heat content (OHC).
In response to reviewers comments, I extended the domain from non-ice covered (60N-60S) oceans to global coverage (including land), as well as borehole-based estimates of deep-land warming trends (I believe a first for this kind of work). The model remains a 1D model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium, within three layers, shown schematically in Fig. 1.
One thing I learned along the way is that, even though borehole temperatures suggest warming extending to almost 200 m depth (the cause of which seems to extent back several centuries), modern Earth System Models (ESMs) have embedded land models that extend to only 10 m depth or so.
Another thing I learned (in the course of responding to reviewers comments) is that the assumed history of radiative forcing has a pretty large effect on diagnosed climate sensitivity. I have been using the RCP6 radiative forcing scenario from the previous (AR5) IPCC report, but in response to reviewers’ suggestions I am now emphasizing the SSP245 scenario from the most recent (AR6) report.
I run all of the model simulations with either one or the other radiative forcing dataset, initialized in 1765 (a common starting point for ESMs). All results below are from the most recent (SSP245) effective radiative forcing scenario preferred by the IPCC (which, it turns out, actually produces lower ECS estimates).
The Model Experiments
In addition to the assumption that the radiative forcing scenarios are a relatively accurate representation of what has been causing climate change since 1765, there is also the assumption that our temperature datasets are sufficiently accurate to compute ECS values.
So, taking those on faith, let’s forge ahead…
I ran the model with thousands of combinations of heat transfer coefficients between model layers and the net feedback parameter (which determines ECS) to get 1970-2021 temperature trends within certain ranges.
For land surface temperature trends I used 5 “different” land datasets: CRUTem5 (+0.277 C/decade), GISS 250 km (+0.306 C/decade), NCDC v3.2.1 (+0.298 C/decade), GHCN/CAMS (+0.348 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.280 C/decade).
For global average sea surface temperature I used HadCRUT5 (+0.153 C/decade), Cowtan & Way (HadCRUT4, +0.148 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.162 C/decade).
For the deep ocean, I used Cheng et al. 0-2000m global average ocean temperature (+0.0269 C/decade), and Cheng’s estimate of the 2000-3688m deep-deep-ocean warming, which amounts to a (very uncertain) +0.01 total warming over the last 40 years. The model must produce the surface trends within the range represented by those datasets, and produce 0-2000 m trends within +/-20% of the Cheng deep-ocean dataset trends.
Since deep-ocean heat storage is such an important constraint on ECS, in Fig. 3 I show the 1D model run that best fits the 0-2000m temperature trend of +0.0269 C/decade over the period 1970-2021.
Finally, the storage of heat in the land surface is usually ignored in such efforts. As mentioned above, climate models have embedded land surface models that extend to only 10 m depth. Yet, borehole temperature profiles have been analyzed that suggest warming up to 200 m in depth (Fig. 4).
This great depth, in turn, suggests that there has been a multi-century warming trend occurring, even in the early 20th Century, which the IPCC ignores and which suggests a natural source for long-term climate change. Any natural source of warming, if ignored, leads to inflated estimates of ECS and of the importance of increasing CO2 in climate change projections.
I used the black curve (bottom panel of Fig. 4) to estimate that the near-surface layer is warming 2.5 times faster than the 0-100 m layer, and 25 times faster than the 100-200 m layer. In my 1D model simulations, I required this amount of deep-land heat storage (analogous to the deep-ocean heat storage computations, but requiring weaker heat transfer coefficients for land and different volumetric heat capacities).
The distributions of diagnosed ECS values I get over land and ocean are shown in Fig. 5.
The final, global average ECS from the central estimates in Fig. 5 is 2.09 deg. C. Again, this is somewhat higher than the 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C obtained by Lewis & Curry, but part of this is due to larger estimates of ocean and land heat storage used here, and I would suspect that our use of only the most recent 50 years of data has some impact as well.
Conclusions
I’ve used a 1D time-dependent model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium to address the question: Given the various estimates of surface and sub-surface warming over the last 50 years, what do they suggest for the sensitivity of the climate system to a doubling of atmospheric CO2?
Using the most recent estimates of effective radiative forcing from Annex III in the latest IPCC report (AR6), the observational data suggest lower climate sensitivities (ECS) than promoted by the IPCC with a central estimate of +2.09 deg C. for the global average. This is at the bottom end of the latest IPCC (AR6) likely range of 2.0 to 4.5 deg. C.
I believe this is still likely an upper bound for ECS, for the following reasons.
Borehole temperatures suggest there has been a long-term warming trend, at least up into the early 20th Century. Ignoring this (whatever its cause) will lead to inflated estimates of ECS.
I still believe that some portion of the land temperature datasets has been contaminated by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island effects, which are indistinguishable from climatic warming in homogenization schemes.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 18, 2022 | sundance
Matt Taibbi files a supplemental thread to his review of DHS/FBI instructions, through the still undisclosed portal. [Twitter File Supplemental Here]
Just a reminder… how the ‘asks’ actually took place is still a mystery, Taibbi & Weiss et al are only privy to the internal actions and discussions after the inbound requests arrive. Put another way, we are blind to the method of the DHS/FBI portal into the network. I do not believe that secrecy is accidental.
The essence of Taibbi’s supplemental report is based on a few internal emails amid the group following DHS/FBI and ODNI officials telling the Twitter rulers they were not cracking down hard enough on the platform content.
As Taibbi notes, “The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th “DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,” that “you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”
Twitter official Yoel Roth then responded to the U.S intelligence community in a series of back-and-forth conversations, and internally to the Twitter censorship group.
As noted by Taibbi, “[Roth] was not “comfortable with the Bureau (and by extension the IC) demanding written answers.” Taibbi then seems to pull out the pretending not to know things card and ponders, “the idea of the FBI acting as conduit for the Intelligence Community is interesting, given that many agencies are barred from domestic operations.”
Gee, ya think? Go figure.
Within the short thread the Intelligence Community is responding to Twitter with citations from mainstream media publications like the Wall Street Journal. However, the citations from the journal are sourced from the same Intelligence Community citing them as evidence.
It’s the proverbial and circular use of the wrap up smear.
Intel community seeds media with false or manipulated narrative. Media prints false or manipulated narrative. Intel Community then uses media printed story as citation to tell Twitter to act on it.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 
