02-24-2017: Millennials, the Carbon Tax and Oligarchs

Posted: February 24, 2017 in Connect The Dots
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Climate change is real, but what drives it?  How should it be studied?  Can a tax fix it?

Global temperature measurement, while being perfected, has so far been analogous to measuring orange diameters estimated by measuring apples; claiming estimates must be adjusted for accuracy by measuring lemon diameters estimated by measuring apricots, then interpolated to apples; then fine tuning the whole thing by comparing lime diameters estimated by measuring oranges and finally projecting the illogical results back to orange diameters.  This sort of nonsense constitutes profound scientific consensus per con-artists the likes of Al Gore and becomes the basis for transferring $trillions to Elite dynastic families and their dutiful pawns from hard working people around the world.

If I’m not a climate denier and don’t scoff at climate science, why would I make the facetious statement above?  Two reasons.  First, the word consensus has no place in science.  If science is systematized knowledge with various departments, say climate science; and if study is the application of mental faculties to the acquisition of knowledge; then we come full circle.  Science is study.  Consensus implies no further study required, arrogantly suggesting we know everything. No science needed.  This is ignorance and denial, not science.

Secondly, explain scientific truth as best we know it.  Admit what we don’t know or are uncertain of.  Hypothesize our theories, but treat theories as theory, not fact.  Discuss theory honestly.  To do otherwise is dishonest at best and worse, becomes manipulative politicization of science toward whatever outside agenda is pursued… usually money, power or both.

If you’re a millennial looking forward to paying your Carbon Tax, you may at least ponder the following.  Weather stations were originally created to monitor local daily weather.  They were not designed to reliably measure global climate variation over time and must be re-vamped to do so.  Collection of temperature data is particularly difficult to standardize and though progress is being made, old data, pre-1940’s data and today’s data don’t go together and as such, ought be treated accordingly, not forced into contrived, possibly erroneous compatibility.  This is unnecessary and counter-productive.  Popular climate preachers are typically disingenuous regarding these concerns.

Water holds more heat than land, therefore is a significant area of concern.  On-water measurement variables include, but are not limited to:  Was water temperature checked at the water surface?  How far above the surface?  How quickly?  At what time of day?  Did time of day vary?  In what type of container – metal, wood, plastic, fabric?  Below the water surface?  How deep?  Were a ship’s water intake tubes used for sampling?  How large a ship?  How deep are its intake tubes?  How close to the engine heat were the samples taken?  Oceans never stop moving.  What effect do currents have on sampling?  Are sampling locations constant – variable – by how much?

On-land measurement variables include, but are not limited to:  Time of day sampling consistency.  Has the time of day for sampling varied?  Has the weather sampling station been relocated – how far – did conditions change?  Was it near the top of a hill and now is at the bottom?  Was it in the shade and is now in the sun?  Was it not protected and now is contained within a building?  Is the measuring device located near a building exhaust fan?  Are the measuring devices different today than equipment used in the past?  Was the equipment located in a rural area that is now urban?  Are the measuring devices properly and regularly calibrated?  Are the sampling employees qualified – by whom – how?  The list of variables is endless – but not at all insurmountable if handled with rigorous discipline.

Global warming enthusiasts insist that raw temperature data cannot be trusted or used due to above recognized issues and dozens more to boot.  I don’t disagree this is an issue.  To suggest consistency or uniformity exists in temperature measurement across many different countries and cultures over long periods of time is ridiculous.  GW enthusiasts insist this data must be adjusted, cleaned and homogenized.  I don’t necessarily disagree.  However, professional judgement based on experience and education are intrinsic to selecting and implementing these adjustments.  There are no internationally accepted standards established, though progress is being made.  This lack of standardization renders homogenization protocols used by different agencies across the globe – non-uniform at best; arbitrary at worse.  It’s not possible to have obvious recognizable variations in protocol and equipment and still claim consensus across the data streams.  This is dishonest.  Why don’t we just admit what the difficulties are and get on with honest debate?  That would be credible… at least more credible.

I don’t have a bone to pick with climatology.  I do have a bone to pick with so-called scientists who claim to know more than they know; or who politicize findings via clever data adjustments; particularly when motivated by continued need for financing and paying the mortgage.  Humans don’t tend to bite the hand that feeds them and scientists are no exception.  In fact, they may be the classic case.

No scientist claiming consensus is an honest scientist.  There’s always more to discover and no one understands this better than real scientists.  Lorentz uncovered the backbone of Einstein’s Relativity Theories with his equations for transforming time, distance and mass in terms of velocity. Einstein then carried the ball into the relativity end zone – so now we have consensus.  Right?  Wrong.  Now we’re digging into quantum theory and relativity isn’t necessarily contradicted, but is certainly tipped upside down as physics fails completely to explain the absolute nature of reality and stubbornly resists reaching out to the metaphysical abyss for possible answers – the Grand Unified Theory or whatever.  We don’t know what we don’t know.  We need our scientists to be honest and should demand no less.

Studies reveal significant factors plausibly impacting earth’s climate patterns beyond anthropomorphic (human) activity, some of which appear cyclical.  Two come immediately to mind.  Sun-spot activity for example.

Dr. Matthew J. Penn (National Solar Observatory, Tucson, AZ.) offered this startling consideration regarding sun-spot cycles.  (Taken from Monica Young’s July 24, 2013 Sky & Telescope article:  http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-100-years/


Penn offered another, more catastrophic option: the sunspot cycle might die altogether. His team uses sunspot spectra to measure their magnetic fields, and his data show a clear trend: the magnetic field strength in sunspots is waning.

Penn’s research shows that sunspots’ magnetic field strength is declining over time. Sunspots can only form if the magnetic field is greater than around 1,500 Gauss, so if the trend continues, we could be headed for a time where no spots appear on the Sun’s surface.

  1. Penn

“If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” Penn states. The first Maunder Minimum occurred during the second half of the 17th century. Almost no spots were seen on the Sun during this time, which coincided with Europe’s Little Ice Age.
Dr. Penn is not alone wondering if a new ice age is more probable than global warming.  There is no real consensus.


Milankovitch Cycles are another example.  Milankovic and others have studied and described their findings relative to collective effects of variation in earth’s rotational and orbital movements on climate over many thousands of years.  Back in the Roaring 20’s, Serbian geophysicist and astronomer, Milutin Milankovic discovered variations in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession resulted in cyclical variation in solar radiation reaching the earth.  This variation (orbital forcing) strongly influences climatic patterns on earth.  This has been confirmed by analysis of deep-ocean cores by others (Hays, Imbrie & Shackleton), though many questions remain unanswered.  Axial tilt variation appears to be significant, whereas elliptical orbit variation has only minor effects.


How can climate scientists develop so-called models leaving out sun-spot activity, cyclical variation of earth’s axis of rotation and elliptical orbit and still suggest their childish models establish climate consensus based primarily on anthropomorphic activity?  This is a bad joke; is unprofessional; dishonest; and undermines climate study credibility.

Dishonesty in climatology disgraces the sincere scientists among us and raises legitimate questions:  To whose benefit?  Where is the money going?  I’m a 65-year old retiree.  None of this impacts my generation much.  As a millennial, however, you may want to ask a question or two before jumping on the Carbon Tax bus.  When someone demands your money; Ask who?  Ask why? Ask to what purpose?

  1. In what manner does any tax reduce CO2 emissions? {I see money changing hands, but no effect on carbon cycles what-so-ever.}
  2. Since Carbon Tax credits are created out of thin air, like fiat currency; who gets to create these credits from nothing and sell them for $trillions of dollars once corrupt government pawns have mandated them by law?  Al Gore and friends?  Why them?  Why not you?

For what it’s worth, the Rothschild/Rockefeller and friends central banking fraud is finally coming to an insolvent end.  We might ask, how do inbred idiots authorized to print money from thin air go broke?  Amazing level of greed and stupidity here, but I digress.

  1. Is it possible that these dynastic families; these corrupt, conscienceless, sometimes pedophilic Oligarchs see the end of their criminal banking enterprise and view the Carbon Tax as their new bonanza? Their new free ride on the backs of the gullible?

In my view, central banking has proved to be the largest criminal enterprise in economic history.  The Carbon Tax will dwarf it in terms of sheer volume of wealth transfer from workers of the world to the Oligarchs through compliant, psychopathic government thugs.

The Carbon Tax is about wealth transfer and Oligarch control.  It has nothing to do with environment or climate.  If we wish to be environmentalists and many of us do; we should do so intelligently and effectively.  Listening to con-men like Al Gore and friends is neither.  Let’s at least demand honesty in our universities, scientists and leaders.  It’s not too much to ask.

  1. Brian says:

    well said Bruce. I’m gonna share


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s