Private Property Ownership – the First American Right To Die Under Barack Obama’s Tyranny

By Tom DeWeese

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can…” John Lennon wrote these words for a fantasy song to glorify his understanding of the road to peace. John may not have understood the true origins of his thoughts, but we know it as Communism. Barack Obama knows that too and is determined to make sure you understand the consequences of “no possessions.” In government-speak it’s called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.” (AFFH) Once it becomes a reality you will be able to fully appreciate John’s statement – imagine no possessions.” For if AFFH is allowed to stand, the concept of private property is about to die in America.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is federal enforcement of Sustainable Development Smart Growth Cities. Until now there was at least a pretense that Smart Growth development was a local process. That, of course, is what the American Planning Association (APA), Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and your city council have assured citizens. Now, through the revelation of AFFH, it is clear that such development is a top-down dictatorship, overseen by the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Announced July 16, 2015 by HUD Secretary Julian Castro, the excuse for the 377 page ruling is to promote and assure discrimination and achieve balanced and integrated living patterns for all citizens. To achieve that goal, AFFH is specifically designed to move people out of rural areas into mega cities and tightly control who may stay in reduced suburbs. Exactly as we’ve been warning about Smart Growth policy.

To achieve its goals, AFFH requires agencies and communities that apply for HUD grants to detail income levels, religion, color, and national origin of every single person living in every neighborhood of the community. They will then determine any imbalances and, if necessary, force a massive shift of people into such neighborhoods to achieve the desired balance. This is nothing less than social engineering!

Worse, the AFFH rule will effectively eliminate local government rule over development. Where once there was at least the pretense of local communities making their own decisions and could spend the HUD grants as they determined best for their communities, now, under AFFH, HUD will control those decisions to its satisfaction. And the local governments will be forced to comply. The result is the destruction of local representative rule. Communities must supply updates to HUD on the break down of its communities every five years to check on and assure progress.

So what does this mean to average American citizens – in plain English? It means the destruction of neighborhoods, loss of control of their own property and loss of property values. If government funded high rise apartment buildings are forced into neighborhoods of single family homes, the value of the properties will fall. It’s possible that, should a neighborhood find itself in a shortage of residents representing certain ethnic backgrounds or income levels, then a homeowner trying to sell their home may find they can only sell to someone representing that imbalance. Imagine the affect that will have on the already depressed real estate market.

For those who live in ethnic neighborhoods of their own choosing, being close to family and friends that share traditions and outlooks, it means being forced into neighborhoods where they are not wanted and where they do not want to be. It means a loss of freedom of choice and loss of the right to be secure in their home. In this day of constant accusations of racism for nearly every act, does no one see the irony of the built- in racism in a regulation that assumes those of certain ethnic origin or economic level are oppressed and unhappy simply because they live in a different kind of environment from that of the enforcers? What could make them feel more lost and hopeless than to be forced into living in government controlled housing in a neighborhood where they are shunned and resented?

This past September the United Nations made a big deal out of its new 2030 Agenda as it vows to eliminate poverty by 2030. Of course the only remedy to poverty offered in any UN policy is redistribution of wealth. That means taking from those who created their wealth (wealth translates to whatever amount you may have in your pocket or bank account at the time) and give a portion to someone who has failed to create their own wealth. However, the missing ingredient in these so-called solutions is a plan to actually help people build their own wealth. Take just a small amount today to feed someone in need and tomorrow they will need more. Again and again and again.

Taking from a producer time and again will cause two results. First, the producer eventually loses their wealth. If government takes enough then the person who once had wealth will have none and will in fact need assistances themselves. Result = more poor, not less. Second, the producer will finally learn that it is a waste of time to keep trying to produce and will stop producing. Result = again, more poor, fewer opportunities. No solution to get people out of the poverty cycle. Moving them into your neighborhood will not stop poverty. It will make you poorer as your property values decrease.

The fact is, America became the wealthiest nation on earth in a very short time precisely because of the ability of every American to own and control their own property. Ownership produces equity – that is a process to build wealth. 60% of small businesses in America were financed by the equity in the owner’s private property. And eventually 60% of Americans were employed by companies that were financed in that manner. Private property ownership is the path to building wealth and eliminating poverty.

However there is no mention of such a plan in the UN’s Agenda 2030. Instead we see quotes like this one from the National Audubon Society’s Peter Berle: “We reject the idea of private property.” Those promoting these policies tell us that private property ownership is a social injustice because not everyone owns private property. So, they plan to make it impossible for anyone to own property – just to keep us all equal.

Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University explained the goal best when he said, “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Ehrlich, by the way, is the father of the discredited population explosion theory that drives much of today’s environmental movement.

As a result of current Smart Growth policies, federal subsidized low income housing is taking the place of single family homes, thus eliminating the ability of low income Americans to buy their own property and achieve their own wealth – what was once called the American Dream.

According to Builderonline.com, which reports on trends in the building industry, homebuilders are no longer planning to build starter homes for young families or low income buyers. They only plan to build single family homes for the rich and federally subsidized apartment buildings for the rest of us. Why? Because the housing industry is being taken over by the federal government through plans such as AFFH. It is setting the standard for the future of housing.

In cities around the nation, such as Portland, Oregon, Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington, their Smart Growth plans are forcing them to end the availability of single family homes. In July, 2015, Seattle mayor Ed Murray and the City Council called on community leaders to develop a Housing Affordability and Living Agenda for the city. One of the main recommendations was to get rid of single family homes. Smart Growth forces an artificial line around the city outside of which no growth may take place. As the population grows, density grows. Eventually the city has no where to grow but up – into pack and stack high-rise apartment buildings. That is what has happened to Seattle. Now home owners will begin to see Eminent Domain used to take their single family home and replace it with the high-rises. It is the end of private property in Seattle.

One of the great outrages coming from the enforcement of such policy is the National Association of Realtors (NAR). This is the national organization that has set itself up as the champion of private property ownership and the idea that home ownership is the root of the American Dream. Yet, the NAR has sold its soul for a few grants and it is now a major promoter of Smart Growth policy. Every realtor in the nation should rise up against the NAR and threaten to leave it if it doesn’t stop promoting Smart Growth policy. If realtors continue to be cowed by the NAR they will soon wake up to learn they will have no product (homes) to sell. The future of every realtor in the nation is at stake. They could and should be a powerful voice in stopping this destruction of property rights. But today they remain silent and ignorant of their own organization’s actions, to their own peril and that of every homeowner in the nation. The NAR and its member realtors take a walk of shame everyday that they let this outrage go forward.

However, some members of Congress are trying to stop AFFH. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona introduced a bill in July to ban funding for AFFH. His bill passed the House 229 – 193. Then Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the “Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act (S.1909). His bill has six co-sponsors including Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. The plan was to get both bills passed in their respective houses, then merge them together in a conference committee and add the final version to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill (THUD). That bill was considered to be “must –pass” legislation making it more likely that Obama would have to sign it or see HUD shut down.

Unfortunately the plan didn’t work. House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell once again betrayed efforts to reign in the Obama juggernaut by eliminating the language from the massive trillion dollar omnibus spending bill passed in December. In fact, the final spending bill actually increased HUD’s budget by $2.6 billion, assuring it has plenty to enforce AFFH.

However, in a conversation I had with Lee’s legislative director, he assured me that S.1909 is still alive and that the Senator is determined to stop AFFH. It is vital that Americans who see the danger in AFFH take action now to stop it. We must flood Capitol Hill with calls supporting S.1909 and express our strong opposition to AFFH.

The American Policy Center has also prepared a petition addressed to Senator Lee to encourage him to continue the fight. With thousands of signatures he can use the petition to show other members of the Senate that he has strong support for S.1909. Readers can sign the petition here. If American private property rights are to be saved then we must stop AFFH!

Clearly HUD’s plan to enforce the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule is a major tool for killing private property and de-developing the United States. It is the enforcement of social justice. It is pure social engineering designed to reorganize human society, just as was promised with Agenda 21.

The one growth industry coming from Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, and the AFFH rule is government. It is getting bigger with each new rule and grant. The obvious result of such massive growth is corruption at all levels of government. When people have no say in how their lives are being engineered government rushes in to fill the void and dictate the rules. It’s a pretty hopeless feeling to stand alone against such a behemoth.

For twenty years the warnings have been issued. We warned that Agenda 21 is the reorganization of human society. That local planning is the enforcement of Agenda 21. That Smart Growth will force people off their land and into cities of stack and pack high-rise tombs. That Sustainable Development will control your food and water; transportation choices; family size. And that shortages and misery are your future.

We warned that our American form of representative government will be replaced by non-elected regional councils and dictated to by a central government. That Free Enterprise will be replaced with fascist-style public private partnerships as international corporations will use their influence with government to stomp out mom and pop stores; government agents will join in group hugs with Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate presidents as they carve up the goods of our once free society.

I’ve delivered all of these warnings for more than 20 years. And frankly I’m weary of it. I’ve been laughed at by elected officials and ignored by national news shows. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist and a liar. As we tried to warn Americans of these dire consequences, they have been easily diverted and maneuvered with the chosen issue of the day; totally engrossed in a presidential election that is a year away; sniping at who said what; who offended whom… Meanwhile, the real issue of the complete destruction of our society, our values and our way of life are ALL encompassed in Agenda 21. And it moves forward almost unabated, as Americans would rather think about something else.

Well America, get ready to receive your due! Barack Obama has just nationalized your home. Along with that, he has put your local government in chains and he and his central government will now make the rules in your local community. If you do nothing now then it won’t matter whom you elect to city council or county commission. It won’t matter how loud you scream. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can! Ignore this warning to take action today or you’re going to learn.

Click here to sign our petition now

 

America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

Posted: 04 Jan 2016 08:23 AM PST

America’s mass shooting capital isn’t somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It’s in Obama’s own hometown.

Chicago is America’s mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.

2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #Black Lives Matter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they’re all run by the party of gun control which somehow can’t seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.

The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country’s murder capital.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.

New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

(A version of this article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.)

Paris COP21 UN Fiasco

Here is the promised Special Newsletter about the recent Paris meeting (aka  COP21 — i.e. the UN’s 21st “Conference of Parties”).

Let’s cut to the chase: these assemblies have n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with CO2, Climate, or Science. Instead they are about money, power, control and promulgating doctrine.

It is increasingly apparent that the most fundamental objective of this crusade, is to substantially undermine Western civilization. If you are the slightest bit skeptical of this reality, then please read some of the books written by US environmental leader, Bill McKibben. One of his recurrent homilies is that “modernity” (aka Western civilization) is a bad thing.

With Bill and his fellow acolytes, this is literally a religion. (See here, here,here, here, here & here for sample reports about this.) It’s important to note that when discussing someone’s religious beliefs: facts, logic, Science, etc. are irrelevant (and irreverent) matters that only come into play when they accidentally coincide with the dogma being proselytized.

The good news is that these people are so mesmerized by their own gibberish and greed, that (so far) they have been incapable of coming up with anything meaningful. As Voluntary Mush says: in the end, what we got out of Paris is:

1) voluntary emission caps,

2) voluntary progress reviews,

3) no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and

4) voluntary contributions to the Fund.

That these preachers are spinning this pablum as a major accomplishment, tells you all you need to know about the credibility of anything they say.

Who is the biggest beneficiary of this insidiousness? China. What would China and some of our largest environmental organizations have in common? Communism — which they’d like to replace Western civilization with. It’s all explained quite well in the trailer for Grinding America Down.

In any case, below is some reasonable commentary on the Paris convocation, roughly arranged in chronological order: before, during and after.

regards,

john droz, jr.

Physicist & Environmental advocate

PS — As a positive person I see at least two reasons for optimism:

1) Citizen sensibility. This related current poll indicates that despite the tedious sermons of the current administration, and environmental extremists, most US citizens are not worshiping at their altar.

2) Real Religion. As I hope the photo I edited suggests, even in the darkest hour, hope springs eternal… Thank you for your support this year. I hope that you and your family have an enjoyable Christmas and holiday season — and that 2016 is a profitable and productive year.  

*************************************************************

Paris Global Warming Meeting: In Advance —

UN Climate Talks: The Ritual 

Meteorologist: Reducing CO2 is All Pain & No Gain

Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate

Paris Talks will emit some 300,000 tons of CO2!

Climatistas

Dr. James Hansen: The Paris Talks are a Fraud

The Hot Air to be Expected from The Paris Talks

China Is Cheating on Climate Change

The Doom-Mongers Should Look at the Science

Pope Francis Preaches Cult Climate Religion

Why is the Pope Mad at Me?

Party Time in Paris

US Chamber: US Climate Plan in Jeopardy

Report: The Truth About China

Paris: No Such Thing as a Global Temperature

Politicians — a Priceless Montage

Paris Global Warming Meeting: While Going On —

Paris About Global Control, not Global Climate

Funding Row Threatens Paris Talks

Fault found with the facts in the President’s presentation in Paris

Countries State Their True Positions Behind Closed Doors

China Accused of Blocking “Progress” at Paris Talks

Are the Paris Talks part of a Great Spiritual Seduction?

“Climate Hustle” the perfect Antidote to the “Inconvenient Truth”

Climate Skeptics Being Stifled in Paris

Climate Skeptics Feel the Chill in Paris

Interview with attendee attorney Chris Horner

US Pledges to Double Climate Funding to Poorer Countries

Zombies and the Paris Talks

US Threatens to Walk Out if their Obligations are Legally Binding

Throwing Humanity to Symbolic Ravening Lions

Linking Climate Change and Terrorism is Ridiculous

Paris Global Warming Meeting: Agreement & Aftermath —

The Paris Agreement

Paris Agreement – Watered down but still dangerous

A Review and Commentary on the Paris Agreement

Paris Global Warming Agreement is a Paper Tiger

Paris Climate of Conformity

The Irrational Legacy of COP21

Climate Pact Winners and Losers

A religious perspective: The Paris Agreement is Worse than a Failure

After Paris — What Now?

A Manufactured “Success” in Paris

The Treaty That Dare Not Speak It’s Name

In Paris, Climate Alarmists Con Themselves, and Everyone Else

Load of DiCRAPrio

Calgary Sun
Michael Platt

dicrapio

Terrified? Of course we are. There’s a chance there won’t be any seats left on the Ship & Anchor patio.

But apparently, he’s serious.

According to self-proclaimed climate champion and environmental leader Leonardo DiCaprio, warm chinooks winds have Calgarians cringing — not because there’s the possibility of low wiper fluid or a lack of patio seats, but because we’ve never seen the likes of it before.

“We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, ‘This has never happened in our province ever,’” DiCaprio was quoted by Variety.com.

“We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come.”

Calling these unexpected, snow-melting winds “scary,” DiCaprio is now using the sudden weather changes he witnessed while filming in Alberta last winter as evidence of impending climate apocalypse.

It would be hilarious, if the star of The Revenant wasn’t also the head of a multimillion-dollar environmental lobby group, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, and a producer of documentaries on climate change.

“You see the fragility of nature and how easily things can be completely transformed with just a few degrees difference,” DiCaprio reportedly told an audience at the SAG-AFTRA Foundation awards, using Alberta’s horrifying winter winds as proof.

“It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse.”

Of course, that’s like getting a sunburn in the Sahara Desert and directly linking your red skin to ozone depletion.

DiCaprio’s overall climate concern may be valid, but the example cited makes him look like a complete idiot — especially for anyone who’s ever heard of a chinook.

“Our team endured two unprecedented weather events that shut down the already-delayed and complicated production schedule, which I’m sure you’ve heard about,” said DiCaprio, who’s actually filmed here in Alberta before.

Of course, there was nothing unprecedented about it. See here.

With temperature shifts of up to 30C in a matter of hours very common, chinook winds and their hallmark arch are anything but a cause for dread, unless you’re migraine-prone and sensitive to pressure changes.

Chinook_wind

Last winter was actually pretty ordinary, as chinooks go.

Rather than terrified, southern Albertans have celebrated the breezy break from the cold for centuries — just as long as people have lived east of the Rocky Mountains, it seems.

If DiCaprio really got his chinook misinformation from a local, the actor should be furious.

He’s been duped into looking like a dim-wit, pure and simple.

But if DiCaprio just made a broad assumption, or if he took an isolated local weather event and extrapolated it to be evidence of climate change, he deserves all of the scorn and ridicule he’s so far endured.

And the mockery should come from every side.

Once again, you have a spoiled, jet-setting entertainer using half-baked notions to promote a cause that’s trendy with the Hollywood elite, and like other famous folk before him, DiCaprio appears willing to twist the truth to suit his latest speech.

For those really concerned about climate change, DiCaprio does more damage than good when he shows total ignorance of how weather relates to climate, while demonstrating a total failure to research even the most basic of facts.

It casts doubt on his credibility, and makes DiCaprio’s other arguments — even if valid — subject to suspicion.

Sadly for Alberta and the truth, DiCaprio’s fame will likely avoid attempts to correct his ignorance, if the actor is even listening from the confines of his private island or luxury yacht.

Fame rules all these days, and so long as the person talking enjoys the adoration of the masses, their message will be the message that gets read, repeated and shared, no matter how dubious.

For countless Leo DiCaprio fans around the world, there now exists a place in Canada where the locals are terrified of unprecedented hot winds fueled by climate change.

 

 

 

The killer smog in China (and India) – a lot like 60 years ago in the west

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Rapid industrialization requires abundant, cheap energy!

China leads the world in 2015 with a growth of 7%. India is not far behind at 5.5%. As China and India have spurred growth to become centers of industry, they have employed cheap energy such as coal without, in many cases, the investment in scrubbing or removal of particulates and chemicals from the effluence that the industrialized west has invested in after similar pollution episodes 60 years ago.

In winters, a cold air settles in, inversions often form in the long nights and daytimes of feeble sun when the winds are light, trapping the pollution. Areas of China and India are suffering from severe pollution episodes this month. In places like Beijing and other populous areas or eastern China, a cold outbreak with snow helped to ensure the inversions when the cold air aloft moved on.

CH1

See the snow cover extending into eastern China including Beijing.

CH2

See the cold air that invaded eastern China in recent weeks.

CH3

The high-pressure overhead gets replaced with gusty northwest winds will clean out the air the next week but then cresting of high pressure overhead by week 2 will allow fog and smog to return.

Even with the attention to China, India is suffering too. Of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world, six are in India.

Though environmentalists make a big deal about the small particulate matter content as the problem because that is the ‘carbon pollution’ that are riding to their hoped for Paris agreement, in reality the real damage comes from chemical reaction of effluent gases like sulfur dioxide with water droplets in the ‘fog/smog’ that forms sulfuric acid mist. It is joined by hydrochloric acid. You will read that it is a CO2 problem but one has to remember with every breath we emit 40,000ppm into air with around 400 ppm CO2 and that CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere.

In Europe and North America, we went through similar incidents that forced necessary changes to our air quality control. That improvement continues. We have decreased the small particulate loading of the air by 50% the last two decades to well below the target standards.

CH4

That brings to mind some of those trigger incidents.

THE GREAT LONDON SMOG OF DECEMBER 1952

As the UKMO described it “The weather in November and early December 1952 had been very cold, with heavy snowfalls across the region. To keep warm, the people of London were burning large quantities of coal in their homes. Smoke was pouring from the chimneys of their houses.

Under normal conditions, smoke would rise into the atmosphere and disperse, but an anticyclone was hanging over the region. This pushes air downwards, warming it as it descends. This creates an inversion, where air close to the ground is cooler than the air higher above it. So when the warm smoke comes out of the chimney, it is trapped. The inversion of 1952 also trapped particles and gases emitted from factory chimneys in the London area, along with pollution, which the winds from the east had brought from industrial areas on the continent.

CH5

Fog formed in the calm air as the ground cooled. During the period of the fog, huge amounts of impurities were released into the atmosphere and trapped in the fog beneath the inversion. On each day during the foggy period, in addition to the small particulates from the combustion of coal, the UKMO estimates 140 tonnes of hydrochloric acid and 14 tonnes of fluorine compounds. In addition, and perhaps most dangerously, 370 tonnes of sulphur dioxide were converted into 800 tonnes of sulphuric acid.” That acid fog is what did most of the damage.

 

Government medical reports in the following weeks estimated that up until 8 December 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog’s effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, at about 12,000. This kind of smog has now become a thing of the past, thanks partly to pollution legislation and also to modern developments, such as the widespread use of central heating.

DONORA PA SMOG EVENT OF 1948

Noontime smog in Donora. Pennsylvania in October 1948

The Donora killer smog event of 1948 was the result of a low level inversion in late October of 1948 resulting in a wall of particulate and chemical laden fog that killed 20 people and sickened 7,000 more in Donora, Pennsylvania” a mill town on the Monongahela River, 24 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. Sixty years later, the incident was described by the New York Times as “one of the worst air pollution disasters in the nation’s history”. The Donora smog event, the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history, let the public know that industrial pollution could kill. It eventually led to the Clean Air Act.

CH6

 

No one is opposed to clean air. I did my doctoral studies grant work on air resources (after a masters on explosive development in east coast storms). We had real pollution issues back then (CO, SO2, NOx, hydrocarbons), largely resolved now. They need to do the same in China and India.

But it is NOT carbon dioxide that is the killer. CO2 is a plant fertilizer that has helped feed the growing world population.

CO2_is_a_benefactor_not_a_pollutant5

Clean coal plants are being built now in China and in places like Japan and Germany as they have discovered that renewables are unreliable and expensive energy sources for not only the populace but also for industry that requires steady, dependable and economical energy sources to compete in the global economy.

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets!

No Tricks Zone

Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.

Ewert

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”

Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling

The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:

Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”

Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”

Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.

*Günter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards internationally.

 

Greenland Was Much Warmer In The Past

Posted on by

Actual scientists (as opposed to the shameless propagandists who currently work at NASA) know that Greenland was much warmer in the past.

 

See video by clicking here VIDEO

2015-11-18-05-43-07

Scientists have long known this for a very long time.

2015-11-18-05-23-07

TimesMachine: January 22, 1934 – NYTimes.com

Except for a short spike from 1990 to 2010, temperatures in southwest Greenland have been generally declining since that article was written – and are now just as cool as they were in the 19th century.

2015-11-13-04-54-27

Meanwhile, the fraudsters working for NASA continue to spread propaganda ahead of Paris.

2015-11-18-05-32-07

The glacier NASA is lying about in their most recent propaganda is growing, not “coming undone.”

Zachariae2013-2015

NASA has degenerated into a mindless propaganda machine for the White House, who simply make “facts” up to serve the liar-in-chief’s political agenda.

Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis

Not only did President Obama assert the morning of the latest Paris massacre that “ISIS is contained.” Along with Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and other global warming alarmists, he continues to insist that climate change is the gravest threat facing mankind, nature and our planet. This article underscores how false those assertions are.

Fossil fuels actually contribute very little to climate change, which is driven by powerful natural forces over which we have no control. Cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather. And Middle Eastern refugees streaming into Europe could face bone-rattling, lethal cold weather, if another Siberian Express roars in from the Arctic. THAT is what Paris climate conferees should address – not how to abolish hydrocarbon use, further hogtie economies, keep 1.3 billion people forever impoverished, and redistribute the world’s wealth.

Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.Please credit Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar for their contributions to it.

Best regards,

Paul

 

Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis

A brutal cold spell could kill refugees. Paris COP21 delegates need to discuss this climate issue.

Paul Driessen and Joe D’Aleo

Even after the latest Paris massacres – and previous radical Islamist atrocities in the USA, France, Britain, Canada, Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere – politicians absurdly say hypothetical manmade global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel contributions to climate change pose few dangers to people or planet, and winters kill 20 times more people than hot weather.

After being assured snowy winters would soon be something only read about in history books, Europe was shaken by five brutally cold winters this past decade. Thousands died, because they were homeless, lived in drafty homes with poor heating systems, or could not afford adequate fuel.

It could happen again, with even worse consequences. “Millions of desperate people are on the march,” Walter Russell Mead recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end.”

Where are they heading? Mostly not into neighboring Arab countries, most of which have yanked their welcome mats. Instead, if they’re not staying in Turkey, they’re going north to Europe – into the path the extremely cold “Siberian Express” has increasingly taken. Germany alone could face the challenge of feeding and sheltering 800,000 to 1,000,000 freezing refugees this winter.

If a blast of frigid Siberian air should hit, temperatures in parts of eastern and northern Europe and the western Former Soviet Union could become 70 degrees F (39C) colder than cold spells in much of the Middle East. During the coldest Siberian outbreaks, it gets as lethally cold as -40F (-40C).

Northern and eastern Europeans are largely acclimated to such cold. However, for refugees from regions where winters average 20 to 30 degrees warmer, makeshift houses or tents will make their sojourn a bone-chilling experience. Europe’s exorbitant energy costs, resulting from its obeisance to climate chaos credos, could make this an even worse humanitarian crisis.

However, to listen to the UN, many world leaders, environmental NGOs, scientists from the climate alarm industry, and their sycophant media – especially on the eve of their Paris 2015 global warming summit – threats from cold weather are not supposed to happen. Just 15 years ago, the German paper Spiegel proclaimed, “Good-bye winter: In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.” That same year, a British Climate Research Unit scientist said “children aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The media dutifully repeated similar claims each year, until unbelievably cold, snowy winters began hitting in 2008/09. In December 2010, England had its second-coldest December since 1659, amid the Little Ice Age. For five years, 2008-2013, snow paralyzed travel in England and northern and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same media then blamed manmade global warming for the harsh winters.

In reality, natural Atlantic Ocean cycles lasting around 60 years control winter temperatures in Europe and Eastern North America. When the North Atlantic warms, “blocking high pressure systems” largely prevent warm Atlantic air from reaching Europe.

There is also a strong correlation between the sun’s geomagnetic activity and these blocking-induced cold winters in Europe. The five brutally cold winters ending in 2012/13 had the lowest level of solar geomagnetic activity in the entire record, dating back some 90 years.

When the North Atlantic is warm and the sun’s geomagnetic patterns are weak, these blocking patterns keep warmer Atlantic air out of Europe. Frigid air from off deep snows in Siberia can then more easily invade from the east, bringing sub-zero cold and heavy snows. That’s what happened from 2008 to 2013.

The ocean and solar factors eased in 2013, and the last two years have seen more Atlantic air and milder winters. However both solar and ocean patterns are starting to return to the situation where cold invasions are more likely. That could usher in nasty surprises for the Middle Eastern refugees.

Even this year’s early winter October cold brought news stories about Syrian children becoming sick amid exposure to colder weather than they were used to. In Austria, adults and children alike were already complaining about the weather and wishing they could go home.

In fact, cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather, according to a Lancet medical journal studythat analyzed 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. It should be required reading for the 40,000-plus bureaucrats, politicians, activists and promoters who will soon descend on Paris, to enjoy five-star hotels and restaurants while blathering endlessly about dire threats of global warming.

They should ponder the fact that the Lancet study reflects normal societies in peaceful countries. Even there, many more people die each year during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Indeed, there even the United States experiences some 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.

In the United Kingdom, the winter death rate is about twice as high as in the USA: excess winter deaths range up to 50,000 per year – due to the UK’s poorer home insulation and heating systems, and much higher energy costs caused by its climate and renewable energy policies.

The refugees’ excess winter death toll could well be even greater, due to the high cost of European energy and the migrants’ extreme poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate clothing and blankets, preexisting diseases, and makeshift housing: tents, trailers and other dwellings that have little or no insulation or central heat.

Systematic misinformation about the dangers of fossil fuels and hot versus cold weather has helped make this crisis much worse than needs be. Climate alarmists will thus bear the blame for thousands of avoidable deaths among refugees this winter, especially if the Siberian Express invades once again.

The Paris climate conferees need to focus on humanity’s real and immediate dangers: this rapidly growing refugee crisis, abysmal EU economies and job losses – and the billions worldwide who still lack the adequate, reliable, affordable energy required to end their crushing poverty, malnutrition, disease and early death, by ensuring clean water, proper sanitation, modern hospitals, lights, refrigerators and plentiful food. The climate conferees must address the following much more pressing questions.

How is climate change more important than safeguarding refugees who are already suffering from cold weather? Should conferees be focused on hypothetical future manmade climate chaos, while EU nations squabble over who will take how many refugees and potential terrorists, amid a possible winter crisis? What contingency plans do they have for another bout of frigid weather possibly invading the continent?

When a million refugees are freezing in squalid conditions with inadequate shelter, food, heat, clothing and medical care, and 1.3 billion people still do not have electricity – why would the world commit to spending billions on alleged future global warming catastrophes? As Bjorn Lomborg puts it, why would the world also want to give up nearly $1 trillion in GDP every year for the rest of this century, to avert a total hypothetical (computer modeled) temperature rise of just 0.306 degrees C (0.558 F) by 2100?

Where will the money come from to combat growing war and terrorism, aid the millions displaced by these horrors, rebuild devastated cities, put millions of people back to work, and bring electricity and better lives to billions of others – if we continue this obsession over global warming? Do humans really play a big enough roll in climate change to justify these incomprehensible price tags? Where is the actual evidence? Not computer models or press releases – the actual evidence?

It would be an unconscionable crime against humanity, if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to protect our planet’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate disasters decades from now, by perpetuating poverty and disease that kill millions more people tomorrow.

These are the real reasons climate change is a critical moral issue. We need to we recognize that, and stop playing games with people’s lives. We must acknowledge that horrific computer model scenarios do not reflect planetary reality – and must not guide energy policy.

Joe D’Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and American Meteorological Society Fellow and co-founder of The Weather Channel. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Climate experts Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar contributed to this article.

 

Is ‘climate change’ really the world’s most pressing problem? (OPINION)

By Gordon Fulks

Famed Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once described science as “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The very first scientific society, The Royal Society, adopted the motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.” Questioning is the stock-in-trade of scientists; it is the way we discover new things and the way we keep science honest. Without the ability to question conclusions, science degenerates into politics and pseudo-religion.

Yet fanatical proponents of the prevailing climate paradigm, like historian Naomi Oreskes, argue that such questioning is equivalent to the tobacco companies questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. That is pure political nonsense, because the arbiter in science is always robust data, not opinion. And we scientists relish the opportunity to point out again the very sturdy statistical links between smoking and lung cancer.

The problem with climate science is that the robust data that should backup the alarming conclusions of the establishment are not there. In fact the robust data show no link between man-made CO2 and global temperature. To be sure, propagandists are forever promoting natural climate variations as “proof.” But these are merely proof that our climate continues to cycle in response to natural forces, as it always has. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period and had nothing to do with our ancestors pulling their chariots with Hummers. This simple logic puts those scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria on the defensive.

Knowing that the robust data is running solidly against them, they are looking elsewhere for a way to win the argument. Climate modelers who have been predicting far more warming than has been observed are particularly on the defensive, because their failures are well documented. To try to salvage something, they have asked President Barack Obama to invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to prosecute as mobsters their fellow scientists who dare to disagree with them. When 20 scientists, led by Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, demanded such action, hurricane expert Peter Webster told atmospheric sciences Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech that these scientists had “signed the death warrant for science.” And Lamar Smith, R-Texas, began a congressional inquiry to question such a brazen attack on science and those who practice it. No one imagined how this drama would unfold. It soon became apparent that Shukla had diverted a portion of his $63 million in government contract funds to his family. It seems he was not content with just a lucrative salary.

This scandal is unfolding as the United Nations is about to convene another climate conference in Paris later this month. To make matters worse, well-known French TV meteorologist Philippe Verdier was abruptly removed from French government television for writing a book charging that we “are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

Will these latest scandals overshadow the Paris conference, as the “Climategate” scandal hung heavily over the Copenhagen conference? My sense is that the participants are now very well-practiced at weathering the perpetual setbacks swirling around them. Total denial has worked for them in the past. Why not now?

What will slow them down is the enormity of what they demand: enormous payments to developing nations and enormous curtailment of industrial activity in the developed world, further shifting it to those developing nations. None of this legitimately addresses any concerns about carbon dioxide, however misguided. It only shifts carbon emissions from one location to another, giving corrupt politicians and bureaucrats a chance to claim success before people realize that they have been duped again by the pervasive propaganda.

One can only hope that Paris will finally mark the unraveling of the vast and greedy climate cartel. The world must move on to far more pressing — and real — problems.

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

A Resolution To Defend Billions of Lives: WE SAY NO TO PARIS COP21

The following resolution was released yesterday by the Schiller Institute, with the intention of rapidly collecting signatures from qualified professionals, political leaders, and ordinary citizens internationally. The main posting of the resolution can be found here, as well as the downloadable leaflet for signatures.

The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.

There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!

Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm. Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.

We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.

But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.

More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth’s ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.

Energy-intensive scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher levels of energy flux-density, per capita and per area. Such progress, growth, and development is a universal right, and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption of a legally binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of life, with higher death rates, greater poverty, and no ability to exercise their inherent human right to participate in the creation of a better future for society as a whole.

This is deeply immoral.

For these reasons the CO2 reduction scheme of the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.