The anthropogenic climate change hoax is a key element of what is basically the oligarchs attempt to  are 'steal earth.'  If successful, it will constitute the biggest theft in history and the payout in monetary terms alone will be enormous.  Yes, it's quite fascinating to see the various ways the implementation is attempted.

Corbett has done an outstanding job of documenting the efforts leading up to where we are now.  I can hardly wait for his promised part-II.  In the mean time, we can watch Nye, Gore, Tyson, etc at work on certain elements of the project which is, as I say, interesting to me.

Sure.  Overpopulation of anything will 'harm' the environment and/or result in harm to one another.  It's a perfectly valid argument that even at our current population levels humans already have crossed that point, but to have this argument one must agree on the meaning of 'harm' among other things.  This seems to me to be the point where many of the 'scientists' often start to become quite 'religious' in their definitions.  More like high priests than like rational engineers, and more and more that is how they are marketed to the plebs.

The way I see it 'we' still have plenty of time to figure out reasonable ways to modulate human population before 'the danger' becomes to great.  Again though, this is simply a values judgement involving my own personal ethics and what-not.  The proposals put forth by 'sustainability' crowd vis-a-vis energy use are flat out genocidal in practice by my estimation, and I think it is a refection of the values judgement of others which differ from my own.

Again, it is beyond absurd that CO2 from human fossil fuel use will be the big problem, but there are plenty of other things that will rupture at certain critical population densities.

Crazy as that sounds off hand, it is technically not all that crazy in a back-of-the-envelope sort of way.  Imagine the weight of the gas in a can that one puts into a car daily.  Imagine picking up the amount of grass that a cow munches down on a per-day basis.  Comes down to the number's count.  But before one goes into a panic, note that the grass (or alternate plant which WILL be growing there) is not destined to become a carbon rich fossil absent the cow.  It would rot and 'pollute' the atmosphere with carbon anyway.

I've heard that among the largest contributors to CH4 are termites and beavers.  The latter due primarily to environmental impacts which create 'wetlands'.  The former hosts more or less the same microbes which can break down cellulose as do ruminates.

This comes back to the suggestion I made earlier that we humans probably made our greatest contribution to global atmospheric carbon about 100,000 years or so ago when we started lighting environments on fire.

It's worth note that the impacts of any greenhouse gas is not linear.  The higher the concentration (of various constituents), the greater the 'atmospheric opacity'.  The analogy I uses earlier is that if one is already behind a sheet of bullet-proof glass, strapping on some body armor is not going to make that much difference since something else will already have stopped the bullet.  I'd have to look again, but I recall methane, while being a 'powerful greenhouse gas', is also especially prone to this principle.  Water vapor has already absorbed most of the energy on the spectra in which methane is most active.  The same principle applies to CO2 but just not as much.

I said 'at least'.  I'm simply not all that familiar with his work.


So the guy is a truther?


That could happen here in a few billion years.  Or tomorrow.  It simply will not happen due to humans using fossil fuels.  Indeed, we could probably burn every ounce of fossil fuel we could possibly dig up and not impact the climate or mean global temperature in a noticeable way, or at least in a noticeable way which would last for more then a few decades.  There is simply not enough carbon sequestered as fossil fuel to do so.

If we learn how to burn carbonate rocks in an energy positive manner and turn half the earth into a huge open pit strip mine, then maybe we could do so via CO2.  Or we figure out how to get the deep ocean to release it's sequestered CO2 and for some reason do it, that could also create the proposed atmospheric CO2-as-greenhouse-gas  problem.  The amount of CO2 sequestered in this manner is something like 40,000/400 relative to the total carbon storage of all potential fossil fuel reserves.

The only reason CO2 is 'in the public mind' relative to climate is that CO2 has a relationship to how humans use energy and a relatively small group of people have recognized that controlling energy means controlling human populations.  These people are the same ones who fund academia, own the corporations who publishing journals, own the actual fossil fuel reserves which contain energy who's value will explode when supply is artificially constrained, etc, etc.

Post the link.  If you want to get fancy, highlight it and use the little globe looking tool.  It's always interesting to see the pseudo-science and psychological methods used by the scare-mongers.  Nye, Gore, etc are true bottom feeders.  Tyson is at least one notch above them in the little bit that I've seen of his work.

But, my dear Spendy, we could have 20 km of sulfuric acid here on earth also if we don't give the oligarchs at the UN $315 TRILLION dollars to save us and let them design and operate a new global economic system.  Don't you know this?

I was just reading a bit about Clinton's tax returns which were just released.  To be honest, I figured that Clinton had already released her tax returns since there was so much about bloviating in the media about Trump's failure to do so.  I should have known better.

The word is that the Clintons were somewhat generous with respect to 'charitable donations', but the catch is that something like 95% of their 'giving' was to the 'Clinton Family Foundation'.  That is different from "William J. Clinton Foundation (Now known as the Clinton Foundation)", but the 'family foundation' which has not released their tax info this year has in years past donated to the 'Clinton Foundation'.  If people find this confusing it is probably not an accident.


If I were advising Trump, here would be several suggestions:

 - Make a joke about Clinton's 'charity' by counting out some money from one pocket and putting it in the other.

 - Call special attention to the recent Judicial Watch FOIA e-mails which make it abundantly clear that at least one of these foundations was a blatant pay-to-play influence peddling sham which leveraged Hillary's role as secretary of state.  God only knows what go on in the others.


With respect to Trump's own taxes:

 - Remind people that he is still under audit by Obama's IRS.  As many of Obama's political adversaries are personally aware, Obama's IRS is absolutely corrupt.  So much so that Lois Lerner had to 'lose' her e-mails just as did secretary Clinton, the EPA, etc, etc.

 - State that it is a joy to see how much his non-release is getting under the skin of the Dems that he is in no hurry.

I like the 'Hillary for Prision' meme well enough, but I like the new one just as well.  It's a little more humane and probably nearly as applicable.

Yes, although with the observation that the most recent warming trend seems to have leveled off over the past 15 years or so.


The chances of a flatline in the concentration of this particular trace gas in the atmosphere are nearly nill.  The alternate is a binary.  It would be either increasing or decreasing in the absence of humans and our activities.  By no means is this an 'incredible coincidence.'

The pseudo-science 'consensus' as communicate by our friend Dr. (I assume) Frank is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is attibutable to our burning of fossil fuel.  One of the many troubles with this, as described in Dr. Salby's lecture, is that while the rate of release of anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels took an abrupt jump around 2000, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not.  This very simple observation alone blows the current theory of 'global warming' as presented to the plebs out of the water.

---

I actually do not doubt that humans and our activities have had a noticable impact on the atmosphere, but I suggest that the bulk of it occured many thousands of years ago when we mixed fire into our toolkit.  It initially seemed plausible to me that fossil fuels could be a problem until I knuckled down and studdied the subject a bit.  The more I do, the more ridiculous the suggestions about fossil fuels and CO2 become.  As for blaming a particular organsim for changing the atmosphic composition, humans are far behind such creatures as blue/green algea and shell forming molusks.  It is probably true that our impacts have been more abrupt than those of other species...but this is not to me a good excuse to kill most of us off as will be the effect of the policies that the Fabian death cult and associated weirdos are peddling with their 'green energy' bullshit.

Such debates are few and far between these days.  It is pretty clear to me as an observer that this is a defensive strategy on the part of the Warmunistas and it is abundantly clear why the strategy is necessary.

Debates did occur in the past and thanks to technology they have not all been memory-holed.  One of the most interesting take-aways I've had from these are that early on, the fascination with the money-making potential of the global warming fear mongering was palpable.  While we no longer see debates on the actual science, we can see opertunistic wealth generation in abundance these days.  Much of it occurs through intercepting value as it transferes through the 'sustainable growth' and 'green energy' systems which have been forged in the ovens of the political machine.

I scanned the NPR article mostly because in my youth I gained a lot of information about the world through that channel and much of my family still does.  As expected, the content was a cacophony of exaggeration, misinformation, and gross logical errors.  I doubt that it was simply an accident on the part of the author.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that Dr. Salby (or his fans) have a new lecture out on youtube which might be of interest to some:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-M_uYkpT0
As with his recent lectures, the mathematics do not exceed the capabilities of those with a basic exposure to differential and integral calculus.

The main focus of this lecture seems to be an exploration of the very important residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.  As usual, Dr. Salby derives this value through multiple methods and compares the result.  As far as I can tell, 'popular' science has devolved to the point where this basic method is no longer even understood much less valued by the the practitioners of scientism.

The values Salby comes up with for residence time are vastly below those used by the 'modelers' and explain nicely the observation that the models are proving intensely invalid as the years drift by.

Salby's work in the current socio-political pseudo-science landscape also explains the desire on the part of the warmunistas like Dr. Mann to discontinue the use of data and lock the 'science' into a 'settled' state as well as the push to criminalize the activities of people like Dr. Salby using RICO statutes and the like.

The polls are obviously completely cooked.  Trump pulls 20,000 to rallys while Clinton can barely pull 200 and she is supposed to be leading?  The establishment knows that as long as they can convince people that Trump isn't to far ahead, they can do the election the old fashioned way by straight up theft.  Watch for exit polls to be mysteriously unreliable and none of the 'professionals' can figure out why, exactly, but 'it is what it is.'

In any event, I stand by my earlier prediction that Hillary won't be in the race at the end.  I predicted she would drop out due to legal problems, but now I think it more likely that health issues will be the excuse.  Tim Kaine is a globalist's wet-dream which is why he was chosen.

I would council the Trump team to not focus exclusively on Hillary's rotten near-corpse and to continue opposition research on the likely options for a replacement.  Warren would be safe as VP because she could be shelved in practice and not bother the banksters to much.  This would mollify the wimmin.  The other likely alternative would be Biden/Kaine where the globalists cannot lose.

I mean that there are a mass of communications that have not been seen, they are the most damaging kinds (which is why they have been hidden) and it is almost certain that a variety of actors have control of them and will probably be releasing them strategically.

It should be noted that I have no particular insider information.  Just a better than average technical understanding of modern communications systems...and seemingly of more archaic human behavior patterns as well.  I've been anticipating the releases that we've seen to date and expect to see more.

I would also add that Wikileaks was singularly responsible for my being interested in Bitcoin at the time I was.  I've also made contributions to Wikileaks in the form of Bitcoin and consider it some of the best money I've ever spent due in part to the recent activity.  Two big thank-yous to Mr Assange.

You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Another one for the taking.  I've not seen it yet.  This relates to the Judicial Watch FOIA e-mails showing gross influence peddling involving the Clinton Foundation
and HRC's state dept.

The establishment defense of Hillary is that the e-mails didn't involve Hillary herself;  only her immediate underlings including Mills and Abedin.  Of course this is ultra-lame and not even a vaguely intelligent Clinton sycophant would buy it, but there are plenty of really dumb folks in our idiocracy here.  The material is so incredibly damning that that is all they can come up with.  LOL!

The proper response is that the particular FOIA request related specifically to Abedin and etc, and the communications involving Clinton herself are still being hidden from the public.  It is almost certain that if/when Clinton's mails themselves are uncovered a lot more of the same can be expected.

several unrelated things.  First, a suggestions for the Trump campaign:

1)  Suggest that what Hillary was doing when she went into her cold chai spasm fit was making fun of those who are handicapped with neurological deficits.  And that it is repulsive especially in light of the many wounded warriors created by the wars that she and Obama have been starting and perpetuating.

The defenses available to Clinton are all bad and not very 'presidential':

 - The spastic movements were not meant to be funny.
 - The spastic movements were meant to be just dance movements.
 - The spastic movements were for real.
 - Trump did it to.

Getting Clinton's health into the news circulation is highly effective and I would argue perfectly fair in part because of the treatment of McCain at the hands of the Dems back in the day, and in part because the concerns are genuinely relevant and important.

---

2)  To those of use who have been paying attention it is pretty much beyond doubt that the handlers of Obama and Clinton really are the founders of so-called ISIS.  Trump could never have stated such 'conspiracy theories' earlier on.  He probably can do so now only because he knows that the proof is certain to be released.  He seems to be shaking the media tree in anticipation of this.  Just like Trump was rope-a-doped into taking a hit on the Khan thing, he now seems to be doing the same thing to the opposition with respect to ISIS.  It will be quite interesting to see how and if they take the bait.  Or if they can avoid it which will be even more interesting.

To people like myself, Trump's willingness to go down these paths goes a long way toward instilling trust.  I understand that there are limits to  where he can go and when, and to see him take these paths when strategically practical is quite confidence inspiring.

---

3)  Trump did take the bait and took a hit with the odious Kahn, but when the Mateen (Orlando shooting hoax father behind Hillary at a rally) thing occurred he did not.  What happened instead was that the Trump team put up the odious pervert Foley in exactly the same position behind trump.  The positioning and hat and etc are to suspicious for my tastes.  It almost has to be a setup, but why?

I suggest that Trump knows that Mateen will harm Clinton more than Foley will harm him.  The key is to get the media talking about things in certain circles, and giving them Foley to chew on was to much.  Furthermore, it is pretty much impossible to point it out without also mentioning Mateen.  And that they did.  Now, if/when proof of the construction and perpetuation of ISIS by the Obama team comes to the fore, the image of Mateen cheering and waving right behind Clinton will have already received broad public play.

Standard fare, and the Dems use it to the hilt when it serves them.  Remember all of the stuff about McCain with his phonebook sized medical records file and suspect mental health as a result of being a war captive?  Cheney and his heart issues?  Both individuals remain among the living today and well past the limits of the terms they sought.

I delighted in these sorts of things when I was more on the left wing camp mostly because they were effective but also, in part, because they represented some actual risks which should be taken into account.  Most politicians are largely meat puppets of the oligarchy, but even so the job is challenging enough that physical and mental liabilities can be a problem, and that is especially the case for those who may wish to take part in the oligarchic planing or challenge some of the movements they are instructed to perform.

Stealing from myself from a few years ago:


Now, in 2016 and after the long anticipated (by me at least) so-called 'hack' of Bitfinished I'll suggest that those of us who are mainly whole and are still operational in this forum and under a stable persona tend to bin heavily into the last category.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's the sense I get.

I'll admit to paying the 'dumbass tax' in most of transactions I've made involving vehicles over my life.  When this has not been the case it has been mostly a result of dumb luck.  Bitcoin and other financial sphere decisions have made it so that I can accept this form of tax when I choose to and when I want to focus on other priories.

Actually, for shits and giggles and to amuse, I did do a beer review of the offerings from the brewers who I sent the note to.  I trimmed that part for this post.  I used to buy Sierra Nevada from time to time and liked it well enough for it's class so it was a disapointment to have to put it on my no-buy list.  New Belgian I never cared much for so that was no great loss.

The reason for my note was mostly pre-emptive.  There are certain brewers who I would be severely disapointed to need to embargo and I wanted to catch them before they fell into the trap.

Looking through the list again just now, my other big disapointment is Lagunitas.  They do quite a good imperial stout which doesn't cost $10/bottle and imperial stout is my favorite so I am always on the lookout for it.  I like barelywine also but it is about the only substance on earth which can reliably give me a headache

This has been going on for a while.  I first became aware of it here from 2014:

  https://www.nrdc.org/brewers-clean-water

I took it upon myself to write an e-mail promising to avoid buying beer from any brewer on the list and sent it to all of brewers of the craft beers that I endulge in...and I drink to much.

---

The EPA's push for increased control of 'water' and their WOTUS
stuff is not about 'clean water'.  It is about control of land,
and anyone who has researched this and read the various 'action
plans' understands the deal.  I think that one of the reasons
why there are few West Coast brewers on this list is that we on
the West Coast recognize this and how detrimental it will be to
our quality of life.

I, as someone who is fairly politically progressive and
environmentally aware, am quite conscious of this mainly
because Oregon's DEQ recently exercised flat-out straight-up
racketeering on me.  This got me researching the whole 'sustainability'
scam set up by the likes of Ken Lay of Enron fame and more recently
Hank Paulson of 'marshal law if no bailout' fame.

Maybe the waters East of the Rocky Mountain suck due to
agricultural run-off and that is why the brewers out there care
(or pretend to.)  Let's assume that and play it out.  What good
is it going to do to give the Federal authorities the legal
right to screw with everybody about their mud-puddle?  They
are not going to stop agriculture or everyone will starve.
Half of the higher-ups are going to do the revolving door thing
into big-ag an the other half the revolving door into the growing
eco-industrial complex.  Only Fed level politics will change
the ratios somewhat.  The grunts on the ground will play their
'petty tyrant' games acting as feeders to the more local
engineering and construction firms.  Ask me how I know this.

Back in the day (when I was a kid) the 'environmentalists' were,
as people, about the same as they are now.  I grew up among
them.  The big difference is they had something worthwhile to
do.  Like getting waters cleaned up that were actually filthy
and keeping nuclear plants from being built on top of faults
and so forth.  Now those who long for the good old days are
increasingly desperate because their problems have largely
vanished.  They are making crap up.  Funding is in abundance
because a great deal of the environmental movement is basically
driven by people who see the utility of 'inventory and control'
of all resources.

I happen to have a very sensitive and important river running
right through my property.  I take my responsibilities to
preserving it's health seriously.  My understandings of the
local ecology come from research and observations over 40
years and not some nebulous ramblings of some condo-dweller
who got his/her graduate degree out of a crackerjack box.  Any
old-school scientist who takes the time to actually reads the
East Anglia material (aka, 'climate-gate') rather than just
accept what the media says about it being no big deal should
be prepared to puke.  What these people pass off for 'science'
at this point is an utter joke and has made a mockery of 'peer
review' process an almost every other aspect of science.

Anyway, my vote for West Coast brew is more Willamette hops,
less fluoride, and less absurd bureaucratic totalitarianism and
hassles.  Feel free to publish my rant if it helps explain why
your brewery wasn't roped into this NRDC PR scam.