Part II: Impeachment Is A Diversion And Delay - Blocking of the "impeachment" witnesses was collusion planned before the new year. Listen to an FBI agent disclosure from 1Jan2O2O here. President Trump to resign close to election securing it for Biden. See latest updates.
Here is the zip file, also made available in the 3Jan2020 update. The file within is VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on headphones.
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. rsvm kl rwe tw twer;l t;wer.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF last updated 4FEB 2O2O:
Fair theory, but climate models haven’t included particle forcing in their data sets. The IPCC just began including this data in their releases for climate modelers to work with.
Global Warming is a failed hypothesis. I don’t think science mag got the memo that it’s failed to such a degree the hypothesis was renamed the more ambiguous Climate Change.
In 2005, the National Academies of Sciences published a pamphlet that expressed the viewpoint that “climate change” was a more scientifically comprehensive description of what was happening to the planet. “The phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures,” it said.[1]
We all agree that climate changes. What we are trying to find out is how much humans impact that. You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data.
The earth had ice caps about half the time over the last 500m years. Melting and re-glaciation are normal processes. [2]
Let's talk about sea level. Since emerging from the last glacial period, sea levels have been rising for the past 8k-10k years, steadily. There has been no deviation during human industrialization from this trend. When we're shown graphs going back 50-100 years, the fact that this is within trend is conveniently omitted. [3]
The data showing that the climate is behaving abnormally or out of trend is sparse at best. At worst, we don't really have it. What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions. [4]
We can go back to ice core samples. We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different. The data obtained is not fully reliable. However, let's assume they're reliable. Then it does not explain why temperates are failing to deviate from historical trends in a way related to these samples with regard to the measurements made today. [5]
In the last 65m years, solar luminence increases brought about by the constant increases of heavier elements in the sun notwithstanding, we find ourselves in one of the coldest periods. Current temps are measuring lower than in previous 100k year cycles which means we will either warm further or that this is an extra-cold period out-of-trend.
Most importantly, as mentioned before, the models built off of co2 levels are doing a poor job with their predictive power. For a final thing to think about, consider some of the best data we have about historical temperates (bucketed logarithmic scale) and realize that we are nowhere near out of trend [6] and that the two rightmost data points are not actual, yet rather predictions made by models we've already established to be incomplete.
I work in the field. The fact that I have to make a throwaway account and toe the line in my profession should say enough about how hard it is to have this conversation without regurgitating dogma.
Those of us less inclined toward politics and more toward research are concerned that the solution is being discussed and pursued by society at large may not necessarily yield the desired results after a significant amount of investment. This is why we are struggling to improve our models rapidly because many suspect the picture is incomplete.
> You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data.
The earth has warmed ~1 degree in a matter of decades. Since you accept this and it's only the human/CO2e influence you doubt then the onus is on you to explain where this tremendous amount of energy has come from. So where is this energy coming from? Which branch of science are you about to shake the foundation of to claim your nobel prize?
I doubt I’ll be getting a Nobel prize anytime soon, but I appreciate the sear, even if not meant entirely in jest. We are trying to explain it and refining our models rapidly. My concern is that much of public discourse has come down to arguing about “how much money to give to government entities to fix the weather.” A large part of this is because the science isn’t “settled” as it is so often claimed.
Really, we’re trying our best but science is messy.
You don't have to refine your models, you have to have even a hypothesis for where the extra energy is coming from if it's not the greenhouse effect. If you had something remotely credible then there's a lot of vested interests happy to shower you with money and show the world. All you have to do is show where the extra energy is coming from.
Climate scientists have observed a massive amount of extra energy, come up with an explanation and tested it. All you've done is say it's not that.
Falsifiability is important in science. I’m sorry that all I can do for now is call into question currently accepted hypotheses. When I say models I’m referring to ones that test other sources of temperature and climate gradation while incorporating current work where appropriate. We have funding but the bulk of money is channeled into co2 research, which I think is misappropriated.
Because of this, current political solutions are the equivalent of debugging a billion line program by randomly changing various functions, where each change costs billions of dollars.
I think when the GP is asking about alternate hypotheses, they are wondering what other sources of temperature and climate gradation you might be considering here. Changes in the sun for example?
You can't say "the data does not support Newton's laws" unless you have another hypothesis like relativity that can provide a better fit to the data. Then you can say that the data favours relativity over Newton, and by how much. You can also ignore the data and use theoretical arguments to say that relativity is a more plausible law to govern the universe than Newton's, but you need a really good theoretical foundation for that.
So if you think theory X is wrong, you must have at least a set of theories Y that you are willing to entertain as being more correct than X.
That's why GP and I are curious about what alternative hypotheses you are evaluating that you seem to think might better explain what's going on than CO2 does.
CO2 has a lot going for it as a hypothesis. It's a simple mechanism, easy to understand, proven to work on Venus, and it's rapidly changing along the same timescale that temperature is changing. It does also have an unfortunate political implication because its atmospheric concentration correlates with the use of particular energy sources. But setting politics aside and just thinking scientifically, I'm interested to hear what has you convinced that CO2 is not an adequate explanation for what we're observing.
Some things that are being investigated are: solar luminosity, the three periodic levels of change in geo orbit, variations in geo magnetic field, as well as more local things such as energy retention properties of various materials used at all levels of construction and seemingly boring things like industrial uses of organic flourides.
One nit: observing that Newtonian physics don’t hold up perfectly at all times would not necessitate having to immediately provide an alternative explanation but would motivate the search for one in the absence of such.
Sorry I do not at all understand what you mean by:
"""We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different."""
How does seeing higher CO2 not indicate that there is indeed higher CO2? The picture in [5] does not clarify.
At this time we’re struggling to correlate measurements in ancient ice core samples with modern air measurements. It’s like measuring cpu utilization % on an m5a.large vs c5.4xlarge (ec2) and comparing the bare numbers. Crude analogy, but it illustrates the point well.
> What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions.
This recent meta-analysis found the opposite, that the models are generally fairly accurate:
Additionally, on a practical level, it doesn't matter if there were major warming spikes millions of years ago. Civilization has only existed for ~10k years, at most.
It seems incredibly irresponsible to bet everything on the chance that human civilization won't suffer stability issues from the enormous changes across the planet and to our current way of life that a 4-5° (or more) rapid increase would cause. It's not unlikely that warming of those levels over the next ~100 years could result in hundreds of millions of desperate migrants, drought and other extreme weather, widespread ecosystem collapse, catastrophic breakdown of supply chains and basic infrastructure, major war, etc.
Life on Earth can recover from that. It has done so before. Human civilization probably won't be so unfazed. Let's just fix the damn carbon emissions. It will be much, much easier than dealing with the global crises unchecked climate change will bring. And on the plus side, doing so will also result in new technological development and economic growth.
Since you transitively apply the credit of operating “robots on mars” to the atmospheric team, I will transitively apply my tax dollars and votes to me operating robots on mars. So all of them.
See, I would think that it will do the opposite. As the poles heat up faster, it would lower the gradient between the hot waters in the equator and the cold waters at the poles that drive the thermo haline cycle.
At least thats what is happening in the atmosphere. Its why the polar jet stream is weaker, and rossby waves are more prone to break off and send a polar vortex to the US, because the gradient across the boundary is lessened by the quickly warming poles.
27 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 65.7 ms ] threadBB10Mp3Footage31Dec1Jan.zip 122.4mb
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXOOhQhHybwky8Z5pGdr9ZXhWpI...
The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning. Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President, thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
162 page PDF [last updated: Feb|4|'2O]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
Previously reported:
\Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O. rsvm kl rwe tw twer;l t;wer.
\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF last updated 4FEB 2O2O:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey).
President Donald Trump:
Demands a $4 billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4thJan2019:
3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77...
3JanCh2_900-1100-avi
In 2005, the National Academies of Sciences published a pamphlet that expressed the viewpoint that “climate change” was a more scientifically comprehensive description of what was happening to the planet. “The phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures,” it said.[1]
1-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/...
The optics of the naming of a hypothesis is counter to the philosophy at the heart scientific inquiry.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
Because someone put it on a graph does not make the explanation simple.
The earth had ice caps about half the time over the last 500m years. Melting and re-glaciation are normal processes. [2]
Let's talk about sea level. Since emerging from the last glacial period, sea levels have been rising for the past 8k-10k years, steadily. There has been no deviation during human industrialization from this trend. When we're shown graphs going back 50-100 years, the fact that this is within trend is conveniently omitted. [3]
The data showing that the climate is behaving abnormally or out of trend is sparse at best. At worst, we don't really have it. What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions. [4]
We can go back to ice core samples. We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different. The data obtained is not fully reliable. However, let's assume they're reliable. Then it does not explain why temperates are failing to deviate from historical trends in a way related to these samples with regard to the measurements made today. [5]
In the last 65m years, solar luminence increases brought about by the constant increases of heavier elements in the sun notwithstanding, we find ourselves in one of the coldest periods. Current temps are measuring lower than in previous 100k year cycles which means we will either warm further or that this is an extra-cold period out-of-trend.
Most importantly, as mentioned before, the models built off of co2 levels are doing a poor job with their predictive power. For a final thing to think about, consider some of the best data we have about historical temperates (bucketed logarithmic scale) and realize that we are nowhere near out of trend [6] and that the two rightmost data points are not actual, yet rather predictions made by models we've already established to be incomplete.
I work in the field. The fact that I have to make a throwaway account and toe the line in my profession should say enough about how hard it is to have this conversation without regurgitating dogma.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/wwaOQz0.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/KYw9DCK.png [3] https://i.imgur.com/UTaqhXl.png [4] https://i.imgur.com/nizfzQS.png [5] https://i.imgur.com/7nZ50Gb.png [6] https://i.imgur.com/b9DBMr1.png
The earth has warmed ~1 degree in a matter of decades. Since you accept this and it's only the human/CO2e influence you doubt then the onus is on you to explain where this tremendous amount of energy has come from. So where is this energy coming from? Which branch of science are you about to shake the foundation of to claim your nobel prize?
Really, we’re trying our best but science is messy.
Climate scientists have observed a massive amount of extra energy, come up with an explanation and tested it. All you've done is say it's not that.
Because of this, current political solutions are the equivalent of debugging a billion line program by randomly changing various functions, where each change costs billions of dollars.
You can't say "the data does not support Newton's laws" unless you have another hypothesis like relativity that can provide a better fit to the data. Then you can say that the data favours relativity over Newton, and by how much. You can also ignore the data and use theoretical arguments to say that relativity is a more plausible law to govern the universe than Newton's, but you need a really good theoretical foundation for that.
So if you think theory X is wrong, you must have at least a set of theories Y that you are willing to entertain as being more correct than X.
That's why GP and I are curious about what alternative hypotheses you are evaluating that you seem to think might better explain what's going on than CO2 does.
CO2 has a lot going for it as a hypothesis. It's a simple mechanism, easy to understand, proven to work on Venus, and it's rapidly changing along the same timescale that temperature is changing. It does also have an unfortunate political implication because its atmospheric concentration correlates with the use of particular energy sources. But setting politics aside and just thinking scientifically, I'm interested to hear what has you convinced that CO2 is not an adequate explanation for what we're observing.
One nit: observing that Newtonian physics don’t hold up perfectly at all times would not necessitate having to immediately provide an alternative explanation but would motivate the search for one in the absence of such.
This recent meta-analysis found the opposite, that the models are generally fairly accurate:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud...
Additionally, on a practical level, it doesn't matter if there were major warming spikes millions of years ago. Civilization has only existed for ~10k years, at most.
It seems incredibly irresponsible to bet everything on the chance that human civilization won't suffer stability issues from the enormous changes across the planet and to our current way of life that a 4-5° (or more) rapid increase would cause. It's not unlikely that warming of those levels over the next ~100 years could result in hundreds of millions of desperate migrants, drought and other extreme weather, widespread ecosystem collapse, catastrophic breakdown of supply chains and basic infrastructure, major war, etc.
Life on Earth can recover from that. It has done so before. Human civilization probably won't be so unfazed. Let's just fix the damn carbon emissions. It will be much, much easier than dealing with the global crises unchecked climate change will bring. And on the plus side, doing so will also result in new technological development and economic growth.
At least thats what is happening in the atmosphere. Its why the polar jet stream is weaker, and rossby waves are more prone to break off and send a polar vortex to the US, because the gradient across the boundary is lessened by the quickly warming poles.