Mr Hand

Members
  • Content count

    7,285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Mr Hand

  • Rank
    Ganja God
  • Birthday 01/01/1930
  1. Trump Just Ordered for Complete ELIMINATION of 16 EPA Global Warming Programs The White House is pushing for significant cuts to EPA programs and staff levels, giving a glimpse of how the Trump administration plans on devolving more control to the states. The budget plan sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to EPA leadership calls for eliminating dozens of programs, including at least 16 that have to do with global warming and implementing former President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. http://www.youngcons.com/trump-just-ordered-for-complete-elimination-of-16-epa-global-warming-programs/
  2. Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data ByDavid Rose for The Mail on Sunday PUBLISHED:17:57 EST, 4 February 2017|UPDATED:10:12 EST, 5 February 2017 Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers. But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised. His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper. His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row. Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4Xsz5KqBN Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook I started this thread onFeb 5 2007. Today is Feb 5 2017 exactly ten years to get to the final nail in thecoffin and put this man made global warming scam to rest!
  3. Detroit was completely taken over and run by Liberals where capitalism , jobs and personal independence was replaced by missery and poverty. Again Trump wasn't my guy but he is already ramping up the largest job boom since the 1950s.
  4. Inconvenient Question: Gore asked about failed ’10-year tipping’ point – Refuses to answer, enters SUV in snow
  5. Hey Tim, I bet you voted for Trump?
  6. i side with....this presidential candidate

    Are you surprised that Bernie is now urging his supporters to vote for the establishment candidate that took millions from Wall Street and foreign countries as a public servant?
  7. So will they go back to calling it Global warming again? Does it go full circle David? Can we go back and do global cooling again?
  8. Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions? 2 days ago July 2, 2016 Guest essay by Eric Worrall The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie“The Day After Tomorrow”. Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up. AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.” … Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today,as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.” http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change. …Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing. Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century(Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance. Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. … Read more:http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf Naturally most of the climate scientists who make such predictions expect the cooling to occur over a relatively short timescale, before the ice melt forcing which causes the predicted cooling is overwhelmed by our continued sinful emissions of CO2. But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/02/are-scientists-preparing-for-a-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/
  9. FRIDAY , JUNE 24, 2016 - 10:00 PM Brexit is a Bad Omen for World Order The Washington Post. The economic story of the past quarter-century was the rapid advance of globalization, the unleashing of trade and commerce among countries rich and poor - a McDonald’s in every European capital, “Made in China” labels throughout Toys R Us. The Brexit vote on Thursday ends that story, at least in its current volume. Voters will soon tell us what sort of sequel they’d prefer. A slowdown in trade growth has already gripped the globe over the past several years, according to data from the World Trade Organization. Prospects now look bleak for completion of major new trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a new accord between the United States and the European Union, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election in November. Political factions in other European countries are clamoring to follow Britain out the door of the European Union. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is promising to levy the highest set of tariffs in the past century for America against China, Mexico and other key trading partners. His presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, has vowed to renegotiate existing deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. These developments come at the hands of an anxious working class across the West, whose members feel left in the cold by many developments of the rapid integration of foreign products and people into their lives. It is clear from the results of the British vote, and from Trump’s rise in U.S. politics, that there is a large backlash against the results of globalization so far. Native-born workers without college degrees are venting their frustrations with immigrants, with factory jobs outsourced abroad and with a growing sense of political helplessness - the idea that their leaders no longer respond to concerns of people like them. University-educated voters in Britain overwhelmingly sided with the “remain” campaign in Thursday’s vote; those without college degrees powered the victory for “leave.” The top issue among those voting to go was Britain’s right to act independently. The second-highest was immigration. In the United States, throughout the Republican primaries and into the general-election campaign, white voters without college degrees have formed the core of Trump’s support, and polls show they, too, are frustrated with immigration and economic integration (in the form of free trade). The forces driving those populist uprisings, both against EU bureaucrats in Brussels and elected officials in Washington, are complex and intertwined. They include long-simmering racial tensions and increased political polarization. But across the West, the economist Branko Milanovic argues, the rise of populism corresponds to a decline in the income share held by the broad middle classes of those countries. Milanovic has studied global inequality trends extensively and is the creator of a semi-famous chart showing how the rise of global trade boosted incomes for the poorest and very richest workers in the world - everyone, really, except for the working class in the West. In a recent blog post, Milanovic writes that in the United States and other rich countries, “populism is rooted in the failure of globalization to deliver palpable benefits to its working class.” With the Brexit vote, the populist movement can already claim a victory: It has won a clear reversal from the economic-integration trend of the past decades. Now the question is whether the movement will ultimately push the world into a more Western-worker-friendly form of globalization - or a full-fledged retreat to protectionism. Either seems possible. In the protectionist scenario, countries such as France and Spain could follow Britain out of the European Union. Trump could win and impose his 45 percent tariffs on trading partners, and China, Mexico and others could retaliate with WTO complaints and tariffs of their own. Economists worry about those possibilities. Some have warned that they could trigger a global recession. (If Brexit has not begun to, already.) In the “reformed globalization” scenario, if you will, political leaders could re-engineer the terms of trade to better cushion workers against shocks and better ensure the gains from trade are broadly spread among workers in rich countries, and do not just flow to the rich. This appears to be Clinton’s stated goal, for example. “I recognize we have to make some changes in trade agreements,” she told The Washington Post in an interview this week, “but I also believe we can’t shut our borders to trade.” Last month in Washington, the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, a former Barack Obama economic adviser named David Lipton, gave a speech titled, “Can Globalization Still Deliver?” In it, he called for a “new form of globalization that works for all” - one that clearly shows working-class voters “the opportunities of collaboration and integration.” “Too many people in the developed world see only a loss of jobs to lower-wage destinations,” Lipton said. “Too many people fear that immigration is compromising their economic well-being. Too few see clearly the payoffs - poverty reduction, the innovation that comes from shared ideas, higher living standards from greater access to trade and higher returns to the wealthy world from investment partnerships with developing countries.” But if they want to sell wary workers on the gains from integration - to salvage a new era of globalization, instead of launching a new dawn of economic retrenchment - public officials might need to be more honest with themselves about the trade-offs that come with deepening economic ties. Harvard University economist Dani Rodrick dubs those trade-offs the “inescapable trilemma of the world economy.” What that means is that we can have any two of these three things, but never all three: democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration. In other words, you can’t have people voting their own interests, in a country that always places its own interests above the shared interests of the global community, while also stitching everyone’s economies together seamlessly. “If we want more globalization,” Rodrick wrote in a 2007 blog post that has only grown in relevance over the past eight years, “we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty. Pretending that we can have all three simultaneously leaves us in an unstable no-man’s land.” A land of Big Macs, cheap toys and more and more Brexits. brexit-globalization http://www.standard.net/Business/2016/06/25/Brexit-is-a-bad-omen-for-world-commerce
  10. Report: 2012 Email With This Marking in Left-Hand Margin Contradicts Clinton’s Key Email Scandal Defense Despite Hillary Clinton’s repeated insistence that no emails “marked classified” were sent or received on her private email server, a newly released 2012 email seems to contradict the former secretary of state’s key defense. The email,first published by FoxNews.com, contains a “C” classification code, which is known as a “portion marking.” More importantly, the classified code was reportedly included in the email when it was sent directly to Clinton. More from thereport: The “C” – which means it was marked classified at the confidential level – is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi’s first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012. “© Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.” Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department — a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations. Read the full email chainhere. Other portion markings include “U” for “Unclassified,” “S” for “Secret” and “TS” for “Top Secret.” Clinton repeated her critical email scandal defense in an interview with Bret Baier on Wednesday. “The fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that,” she said. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) said if the 2012 email is proven to have been marked classified when it was sent to Clinton, it would directly contradict Clinton’s previous statements. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/11/report-2012-email-with-this-marking-in-left-hand-margin-contradicts-clintons-key-email-scandal-defense/
  11. FLASHBACK: ABC News Warns NYC Will Be Under Water by 2015 Due to Global Warming and Polar Bears Will Fall From Sky New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.” http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/flashback-abc-news-warns-nyc-will-be-under-water-by-2015-due-to-global-warming-and-polar-bears-will-fall-from-sky/
  12. I am not a big Trump fan. But I saw this and had to share with TimJ. Trump: As president, I would prosecute Clinton Donald Trump said Monday night that he believes Hillary Clinton will likely get away with her use of a privateemail serverwhile she was secretary of state, but said that as president, it's only fair that he'd look to prosecute Clinton. Fox News' Sean Hannity asked Trump in front of a live Nevada audience if his attorney general would go after Clinton should an investigation find she broke the law while serving in the Obama administration. "You have no choice," Trump replied. "In fairness, you have to look into that." "She seems to be guilty," he said. "But you know what, I wouldn't even say that." "But certainly, it has to be looked at," Trump added. "If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as being fair to anyone else. So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-as-president-i-would-prosecute-clinton/article/2583925
  13. The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.” The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will. On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is. As well they should be. Obama’s policies will have negligible effects on the climate and will be all pain with no gain. Two critical points about “the science around climate change” stand out in a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition, a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group (CO2Coalition.org). First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions. For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a “CO2 famine.” Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history. We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it. Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions. The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to “dispute the science” by trying to manufacture scary warming trends. A recent letter to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by more than 300 experts on data quality pointed out that the feds’ attempt to erase or ignore evidence of the recent lack of global warming arguably violated the Data Quality Act of 2001, which requires that “highly influential scientific assessments,” bearing the imprimatur of the federal government, be subject to rigorous external peer review. It exposes the hollowness of the left’s claim that “97 percent of scientists” support Team Obama’s version of climate science. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures are the genuine gold standard — and they show negligible warming for the past two decades. Since the Obama administration can’t read just satellite data (as they have tried to do with surface data), they have unleashed a campaign to discredit the satellite temperature record. The observational record indicates that the temperature increase by the year 2100 will be less than 1 degree Celsius as a result of CO2 emissions. This small temperature increase, together with the robust benefits to plants and agriculture, will benefit the world. How about other concerns? Some claim that more CO2 causes extreme weather, accelerating a rise in sea levels or other horrors. But extensive global measurements reveal no increase in extreme weather: The trends in tornadoes, droughts, floods and hurricanes are flat over the past generation. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate they did before the rising concentrations of CO2 during the past century. Inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels has raised living standards in the developed world to levels that only the wealthy could dream of a few centuries ago. Eliminating fossil fuels would do nothing to stop climate change, but it would keep much of the developing world in poverty. Rising energy costs would hurt the less privileged populations of the developed world as well. Bravo for the Supreme Court’s vote for solid science! Will Happer, professor of physics, emeritus at Princeton University and Rod Nichols, former president of the New York Academy of Sciences, are members of the CO2 Coalition (CO2Coalition.org). http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/