TEA PARTY SOLUTIONS, INC. Ocala, FL

EDUCATE, MOTIVATE, ACTIVATE

Welcome

Who We Are

Directions

Events Calendar

Announcements

Monday Night's Meeting

Know Your Enemy

Research Links

Declaration of Grievances

Our Constitution

Bad Bills in the Congress

The United Nations

Sustainable Development

National Issues

Climate

Gun Rights

Health Care

Judicial

Unions

Sustainable Deveopment

The Economy

The Fed

Election Information

Federal Presidential

Florida State

County

Ocala City

School Board

Honor Our Heros

First Responders

PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

NEWS AND ACTION

GOOD STUFF

LINKS/CONTACT/GUEST BOOK

MESSAGE BOARD/CZARS AND M

Climate


Climate Change:
Is our planet changing?  Of course it is, it is a living biosphere, if it were not changing we would have a real problem! 

Is man affecting change on our planet or is climate change a means to implement socio-economic change?

Here are links to scientific peer reviewed writings that are documenting the facts about climate change.

You Make Up Your Own Mind

Science & Public Policy Institute
Dec 25, 2011

Modern-day climate change witch hunt

By Brendan O’Neill, ABC Drum

What is it about freakishly cold winters that so agitates intolerant moralists?

In Europe 500 years ago, any sign of a dip in the winter weather would be greeted by much gnashing of teeth from the morality police. Sometimes they’d even burn at the stake “witches” who were said to have caused the extreme cold through their wicked behaviour and sorcery.

Fast-forward to the 21st century and still there’s nothing like a bitingly cold winter to drive moralists mad with priestly fury. Only today, in a more PC, less pyromaniacal version of what their forebears did, they don’t burn people at the stake for causing cold winters - no, they prefer to hector us with op-eds and insults instead.

The last couple of winters in western Europe have been bitterly cold. Last year the British Isles were coated in thick snow, causing chaos. This winter is shaping up to be a bit warmer, though cold snaps are expected in the new year.

All this iciness has put green-leaning moralists in a tailspin. They scour the press and the blogs for any whiff of a hint of a suggestion that perhaps these cold winters disprove the global-warming thesis, and inform us that, actually, extreme coldness is yet another side-effect of man’s constant farting of CO2 into the environment.

This week, a top Welsh scientist highlighted one of the key problems associated with very cold winters - no, not the possibility of elderly people going hypothermia or an increased risk of car accidents on slushy roads, but the danger that the dumb public will think all this snow proves hot-headed environmentalists wrong.

Professor Michael Hambrey of the University of Aberystwyth said “the public must not be misled into believing that a series of cold winters are evidence that climate change is a myth”.

Echoing green activists, who get strangely defensive during very cold winters, Professor Hambrey reminded us that climate change is not only going to make the world hellishly hotter but will also lead to a situation where “more extreme winters become the norm”.

Last year, during Britain’s big freeze, greens incessantly lectured us about how cold winters are just as much the fault of greedy, hubristic, polluting man as recent heatwaves and droughts have been.

A writer for The Times said anyone who seizes the opportunity of a wicked winter to ask “what happened to global warming?” is an “idiot”, because nobody ever claimed that climate change would “make Britain hotter in the long run”. (Er, yes they did.)

A headline in the Guardian informed us that: “The snow outside is what global warming looks like”, and the reason the plebs and simpletons who make up modern Britain can’t understand this fact is because they are:

“simple, earthy creatures, governed by the senses… What [they] see and taste and feel overrides analysis. The cold has reason in a deathly grip.”

Perhaps. Or perhaps the reason the public’s cynicism towards environmentalism goes up a notch whenever it snows is because for the past 10 years, before the recent big freezes set in, environmentalists told us we’d never see snow again.

“Snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, declared the Independent in March 2000, quoting an expert from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - a major producer of climate-change info - saying that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”.

Mark Lynas, one of Britain’s chief climate-change alarmists, told us in 2004 to prepare for life on a “hotter planet” in which “the traditional British winter [is] probably gone for good”.

And yet today, any mortal who dares to wonder out loud why it’s snowing so much if the planet is supposed to be getting hotter is told to shut up, branded an “idiot”, pityingly looked upon as a “simple creature” lacking reason. Weird wintry weather is as manmade as hotness is, we’re told. In short, snow, like floods and droughts and plagues of locusts, is another by-product of our destructive behaviour.

These greens don’t seem to realise how much they sound like medieval witch-hunters. In the Dark Ages, before man enlightened himself, witches were frequently hunted and burned on the basis that they were causing climate change - specifically very cold winters.

One of the driving forces behind the witch-hunting mania in Europe between the 15th and 17th centuries was the idea that these peculiar creatures had warped the weather.

As the German historian Wolfgang Behringer argued in his 2004 book, Witches and Witch-Hunts, “large-scale persecutions were clearly linked to years of extreme hardship and in particular the type of misery related to extreme climatic events”.

So during the Little Ice Age, the period of unusual coldness that started around the mid-1500s, there was an upsurge in witch-hunting. There was another outburst in 1628, described by historians as “the year without a summer”, because once again people’s crops failed and they were desperate to find someone to blame. As Behringer puts it, when the “climate stayed unfavourable or ‘unnatural’ the demand for persecutions persisted”.

Johann Weyer, the 16th-century physicist who spoke out against witch-hunting, described how one woman was forced to confess to causing climate change:

“[A] poor old woman was driven by torture to confess - as she was about to be offered to Vulcan’s flames - that she had caused the incredible severity of the previous winter of 1565, and the extreme cold, and the lasting ice.”

Pointy-hatted Witchfinder Generals were convinced that foul, immoral people, through the magic of their thoughts and words, had conjured up climatic mayhem and icy conditions. Sound familiar? Yep - today, too, hectoring moralists hold wicked human beings responsible for causing unusual coldness.

In the old witch-hunting era, it was a powerful sense of social uncertainty and fear of the future which led the priestly class to view mysterious individuals as being culpable for climate change. Today, too, a similarly profound social and moral malaise has led elite greens to claim that the throng, with its reckless ways and insatiable material desires, is causing dangerously freezing/hot conditions.

Of course, in one important way today’s green moaners are more enlightened than the witch-hunters of old: they don’t hurl anyone on to “Vulcan’s flames”. But in another sense they’re more backward than the medieval moralists since they don’t only old a few sad old women responsible for climatic disarray, but rather point the finger of blame at everyone - all the “idiots” and “simple creatures” whose desire for stuff and wealth and holidays is apparently causing both cruel summers and harsh winters. In the eyes of the green lobby, we are all witches now.


Sep 14, 2011
Skinning The Cat With Climate Justice

By Meteorologist Art Horn, Icecap, in the Energy Tribune

In early November of 2010 President Obama’s attempt to pass a bill that would bring a Cap-and-Trade system to the United States to control emissions of carbon dioxide failed. After this defeat he proclaimed “Cap-and-Trade was just one way of skinning the cat, it was a means not and end. I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem” He has found that means, it’s called climate justice. Actually he had it in his back pocket all the time.

Never heard of climate justice? It’s been around for about 20 years. It was given life by President Clinton on February 11th 1994 with executive order 12898. It required no less than 11 federal agencies to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”

By now you must be asking what is climate justice? The organization Mobilization for Climate Justice defines it as “a vision to dissolve and alleviate the unequal burdens created by climate change. As a form of environmental justice, climate justice is the fair treatment of all people and freedom from discrimination with the creation of policies and projects that address climate change and the systems that create climate change and perpetuate discrimination.”

So the idea is to make the adverse effects of global warming (climate change) a moral issue. It infers that anyone, any government or government policy, or any company that in any way produces something that causes global warming and therefore climate change is discriminating against an individual or group that can’t fight back due to their minority status or low-income. It is therefore immoral for any entity to produce anything that causes climate change and that there should be consequences for those actions. Depriving anyone of the right to climate justice is a crime against that person’s right to prosper from a healthy climate, free from man made global warming. To president Obama the founding fathers of this country, many who were slave owners, intended us to have life, liberty and the pursuit of climate justice.

Perhaps the key phrase in the above definition of climate justice is “the creation of policies and projects that address climate change and the systems that create climate change.” One of those “systems” that create climate change would be the way we make energy through the use of fossil fuels. Climate justice proclaims that using fossil fuels to make energy is causing the earth’s temperature to rise and that doing so is therefore immoral. Those “systems” that allegedly cause climate change include the oil companies and utilities that generate electricity along with anything else that produces carbon dioxide such as you and I.

The goal of climate justice is to stop the world from using fossil fuels to make energy because it is immoral and discriminatory. This is the blade that President Obama hopes to use to skin the cat. By issuing a memorandum of understanding on environmental justice and executive order number 12898 in August of this year, President Obama hopes to develop policies that will empower people who are discriminated against by those polluting entities that are creating climate change. That is the way around his Cap-and-Trade defeat. He said “I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem”.

The potential destructive power of this policy can't be underestimated, especially if he is re-elected. Armed with this “moral” weapon the president and his supporters will be able to go after all energy companies that use fossil fuels. One of his most powerful allies in this endeavor is Lisa Jackson, Chief of the EPA. Jackson is an ardent climate justice proponent. She has been a leader in the fight to legitimize the concept of climate justice. There is even a climate justice website within the EPA! Jackson is quoted as saying “We want to put and end to the days when public health and economic potential are harmed by disproportionate exposure to pollution.” The word “pollution” is code for carbon dioxide.

Climate justice is deeply rooted in the policies and ideologies of the United Nations. In 2000 the first Climate Justice Summit took place at The Hague, the Netherlands along side the 6th Conference of Parties (COP6) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Climate Summit proclaimed “We affirm that climate change is a rights issue. It affects our livelihoods, our health, our children and our natural resources. We will build alliances across states and boarders to oppose climate change patterns and advocate for and practice of sustainable development.” The words “climate change patterns” are code for any government or company that produces carbon dioxide.

In 2010 the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth took place in Tiquipaya, Bolivia. At the conference issues of climate justice were discussed. These discussions resulted in a People’s Agreement calling for the possible formation of an International Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal. If developed this international environmental court could eventually prosecute companies or whole nations for the crime of endangering climate justice by using fossil fuels to make energy. Though the conference did not advocate the establishment of such a court the objective was “to asses whether an International Climate Justice Tribunal or alternatively an International Environmental Court is necessary or appropriate as a means to enforce commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Even thinking of these possibilities should send chills down the back of freedom loving people.

President Obama and his administration are apparently in lock step with the United Nations and its pursuit of climate justice. If implemented as a policy here in the United States, climate justice, as a matter of enforceable law, would introduce uncertainty factors into the energy markets that would dwarf anything we’ve seen so far. The resulting lawsuits against all energy producing companies and the resulting price increases as a result of multi-billion dollar settlements could be catastrophic to a nation that is already teetering on the brink of collapse from overspending and suffocating EPA regulations.

Climate justice has nothing to do with the climate and nothing to do with justice. It is a covert vehicle for socialists to re-invent the way we make energy and to propel the radial environmental movement into a leadership roll in American government. The goal of the advocates of this agenda is to supplant the Constitution of The United States with climate justice and therefore establish radical environmental policies as the rule of the land. Amazingly our own president seems to be moving in this direction. He did say just before the election that “We are days away from fundamentally transforming The United States of America.” Climate justice is part of that transformation and will be the weapon of choice to skin our energy producing companies.


Emporer Gore
Internation Climate and Enviromental Change Assessment Project
Global Weather Oscillations Inc.
The climate just turned cold for non-physicists


By Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger
The Star-Ledger


Question: What could a climate scientist bring to the debate among physicists over the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth’s atmosphere?

Answer: the coffee.

Physicists have long maintained that the question of climate change was properly within the realm of physics rather than that of those glorified weathermen who call themselves “climatologists.” Last week we got confirmation of that. It came in the form of a study by physicists in Switzerland.

The study, which was published in the prestigious peer-reviewed science publication Nature, gave support to an alternative theory of climate change first proposed in the late 1990s by a Danish physicist named Henrik Svensmark.

Svensmark proposed that the wild swings in climate over the eons could not be attributed to a cause as minor as slight increases in gases such as carbon dioxide. Instead, he theorized, those swings could be caused by solar activity. Cosmic rays from the sun might play a key role in cloud formation in the Earth�s atmosphere. Clouds can trap heat.

That was the theory. But like all theories, it had to be tested in the lab. The lab in question was the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva. And sure enough, the study showed that ionization increases the nucleation rate of condensation nuclei.

In other words, cosmic rays can have an effect on climate. Meanwhile, atmospheric gases don’t seem to play that big a role in cloud formation, the study concluded.

Physicists have suspected this is the case ever since Svensmark advanced the theory. One such physicist with whom I’ve discussed it at length is William Happer, who runs a physics lab that is named after him at Princeton University. The primary source of confusion for the layman, said Happer, is the supposed consensus among scientists that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide raise the temperature of the planet.

There is indeed such a consensus, he said, but it goes only as far as the effect of the CO₂ itself. And the recent rise in CO₂ could account for an increase of, at most, a 10th of degree, he believes.

To get to the massive temperature spikes predicted by Al Gore et al., you need what�s known as “forcing.” That�s the theory that a relatively small increase in man-made greenhouse gases, such as CO₂, will have a large effect on water vapor, which is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

When I e-mailed Happer asking if we could chat about this, he informed me he was about to take a trip on the Trans-Siberian Railway and would be out of touch for a week. That�s why physicists are fun to talk to, by the way. They do lots of cool stuff. If you doubt that, read “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynmann,” in which the late Richard Feynmann describes applying his talents to safe-cracking and gambling.

Anyway, I called another scientist skeptical of the climatology crowd, Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook is a professor of geology at Western Washington University who is an expert on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a wind-flow system over the Pacific Ocean that has a huge influence on the Earth’s climate.

It’s back to the drawing board for the climatologists, he told me. Their models need to change to incorporate the new data.

“They couldn’t even predict 10 years ahead,” said Easterbrook. “The bottom line is their modeling results have been a dismal failure.”

The reason is not far to seek, he said. When it comes to the sun, those models took into account only the amount of heat being directed toward the Earth. They didn’t take into account the effect solar activity has on cloud formation. That’s where the physics comes in.

“Unfortunately, you do have to be a rocket scientist to understand this,” said Easterbrook. “But those climate scientists are virtually all computer modelers.”

They’ve now got something new to put into their models, he said. The CERN study doesn’t necessarily show, as some have claimed, that we’ll soon be entering an ice age or that greenhouse gases have no influence whatsoever. But it does show that computer models are only as good as the data they’re based on.

And when it comes to what could be the key piece of data needed to model the climate, the climatologists are now at the mercy of the physicists. That area of research is far above the climatologists’ heads - literally and figuratively.

ALSO: Who’s in denial now? In this piece, Svensmark makes a compelling argument that climate scientists need to rework their models to include the effect of solar activity:

Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.

It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect - indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth�s clouds originate in space.