Thursday, 23 February 2017

Conservative Daily Post: Nasa to stop Global Warming Research
by Matthew Berstein   American Strength.              
                                                     Global Warming Research to be switched to Space Exploration
Conservative Daily Post

Anyone who has ever listened to a liberal talk for more than 10 minutes will have undoubtedly heard about one of at least three things that they consider issues. They will talk about global warming, how President Donald Trump is racist, sexist, etc. or they will discuss illegal immigrant rights.
Despite the fact that the scientific evidence that liberals claim to show evidence of global warming was altered to support their statements, they continue to talk about how it needs to be combatted. They want a tremendous amount of time and research, and money, going into that section of science, taking away from others in the process.
Under former President Obama, that was allowed to happen. NASA, the only science agency that the United States has that can explore space and everything out there, was instead focusing on global warming research, thanks to the money that was given to them by Obama.

Meanwhile, the House is expected to pass the bill as well and early indication shows that President Trump is more than willing to sign it. The bill’s supporters claim it “re-balances” NASA’s budged back to space exploration instead of focusing on global warming and other earth science research.
Effectively, Republicans plan to cut more than $2 billion that NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate. It might not seem like a lot of money to an agency like this, but every dollar helps.

“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences.” That statement came from Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. He is also the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
“I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that.” It’s not that unusual a request considering that NASA was literally created to focus on space exploration.
The past eight years under Obama saw NASA’s spending on earth and global warming research increase by over 60 percent. That also made it the largest and fastest growing budget of any single NASA science program.

This includes astrophysics and space technology. Those programs received a little over $780 million and just under $830 million respectively. So even when they are combined, the programs don’t reach the same budget as what NASA was spending on global warming research, really showing how far behind the country is on space exploration.
Smith continued, “We only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.” If there is only one agency designed for space exploration and they aren’t even focusing on space, then what good is it going to do?
To help in this, Trump has put former Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker as a senior adviser to his NASA transition team. It’s a good call, as this is someone that believes NASA should do less “politically correct environmental monitoring” and more space exploration.
Walker, accompanied by another senior adviser to the Trump campaign, Peter Navarro, wrote an opinion piece in October about NASA and space exploration. “NASA should be focused primarily on deep-space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies. Human exploration of our entire solar system by the end of this century should be NASA’s focus and goal.”
Experts have blamed former President Obama for delaying plans to send astronauts to Mars until 2030. This wasn’t anything new as back in 2007, then-Senator Obama had called for delaying the Constellation program to replace NASA’s Space Shuttles for five years to pay for his education program.

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Cape Breton Canada record Snowfall

 Cape Breton Post records record snowfall  45.7 cm.   Last record 18.8cm!
14 February 2017   CB Post acknowledgements.  also

Sunday, 19 February 2017

No sun spots a sure sign of a approaching ice age. global warming is dead

  Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center(SIDC).  the thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. (Graph acknowledgement:  A declining sun is a sure indicator of a coming ice age.  Message to government: prepare now!

Click to enlarge images. Comparison of all solar cycles since 1755 in terms of accumulated sunspot number anomalies from the mean value. Authors Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt.

Monday, 6 February 2017

Professor William Happer(Princeton University) on climate change

                                          Professor William Happer  Tribune News Service  2 February 2017.
Consulted by President Trump on climate change.

The media and hostile congressional interrogators have routinely asked nominees for high
positions in the new Trump administration some variant of the question, “Is climate change
a hoax?”
Nominees should answer forthrightly, “No!”
Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago.
Climate changes on every time scale — whether decades, centuries or millennia.
The climate of Greenland was warm enough for farming around the year 1100 A.D., but by
1500, the Little Ice Age drove Norse settlers out. There is no opportunity for a hoax, since
climate change is so well documented by historical and geophysical records.
But none of the climate change of the past was due to humans. The very minor warming in
the past few centuries is mostly from non-human causes as well.
What is really being asked is, “Do you agree with the party line of the previous
administration, that continued emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet unless
the people of the world do exactly what they are told?”
The answer to this question should also be a resounding no; we should not bow to
religious dogma disguised as science.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hoax” as “to trick into believing or
accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.”
So hoax is a pretty good description of the article of faith that nominees are being asked to
endorse: that carbon dioxide is supposedly dangerous “carbon pollution.”
All living creatures respire large amounts of carbon dioxide every day. Plants need it to survive.
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------- Satellites already show dramatic greening of the earth as carbon dioxide levels begin to
recover toward their historical norms. Those levels had been measured in thousands of
parts per million (ppm), not today’s puny 400 ppm.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but much less important than the major
greenhouse gas, water vapor, H2O, and clouds.
Observations, including the extended “hiatus” in warming since about the year 2000 —
which is poised to continue now that the El Nino warming of 2015-2016 is behind us —
show that more atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause only modest warming of the Earth’s
This would benefit the world in many ways, extending growing seasons and lessening
human mortality, which increases in cold weather. And modest warming means that there
will also be no dangerous increase in sea levels. Climate alarmists are advancing a false
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To limit increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide, smug elites demand that developing
countries not burn fossil fuels as inexpensive, reliable sources of energy.
It is immoral to deny much of the world’s population this opportunity to escape centuries of
poverty. Real pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, oxides of sulfur, nitrogen, fly ash, etc.,
do need rational control by cost-effective technology. But more carbon dioxide is a benefit
to humanity and the “social cost of carbon,” aka carbon dioxide, is negative.
Many sincere people, without the time or training to dig into the facts, have been misled by
the demonization of carbon dioxide.
This seems to be a recurrent feature of human history. In past centuries, some of the most
educated members of society wrote learned books on how to ferret out witches and
presided in trials where witches were condemned to death.
There never was a threat from witches, and there is no threat from increasing carbon
The great Baltimore iconoclast, H.L. Mencken got it right when he observed: “The whole
aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Climate
change is the latest hobgoblin.

William Happer is an emeritus Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a former Director of Energy Research of the U.S. Department of Energy. Readers may write him at 258 

Jadwin Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544.