LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Ephemera




"...The problem is, renewables need huge government subsidies to attract investment. But subsidising renewables, and giving them priority access to the grid, makes other forms of energy uneconomical – if you have to keep cycling your gas, coal or nuclear plant up and down, depending on whether the wind is blowing, it is impossible to make a profit.

Renewables are too unreliable to replace other sources of energy. Politicians quickly learn that they cannot allow now unprofitable fossil fuel and nuclear power companies to fail.

Guess what happens next? As soon as energy companies catch on that the politicians have taken over, that it is no longer the job of energy companies to keep the grid stable, everyone gets into the government handout game, even coal plant operators. They all demand and receive their own slice of the subsidy cake.

British politicians thought they were in charge of energy policy. Instead they have been captured by energy companies, who have learned through experience that politicians have far more to lose when the electricity grid fails than they do."


-Eric Worrall
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/30/nuclear-demands-a-share-of-illinois-carbon-subsidies/
​





https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/30/nuclear-demands-a-share-of-illinois-carbon-subsidies/


​

____________________________




Section 526 – for a “Green National Defense”

August 4, 2016
by David Archibald



“Men” said Charles Mackay in 1841,”go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Recovering from groupthink is a slow process, as evinced by Section 311 of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2017 which was passed on 18th May, 2016.

Section 311 on page 139 simply says:

Rule of Construction Regarding Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement

This section would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) to clarify that this section shall not be construed as a constraint on any conventional or unconventional fuel procurement necessary for military operations.

The Section 526 referred to says:

“Prohibits a federal agency from entering into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use (other than for research or testing), unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources."
​
This section was included in the 2007 bill largely to thwart the Defense Department’s intentions to acquire coal-based jet fuels. So a bill with a title that suggests it is about promoting energy independence and security was doing the opposite of that. Section 526 was the work of Congressman Henry Waxman representing California’s 30th District. Wiser heads wanted to repeal Section 526 straight away via amendments to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill. That didn’t happen. Efforts to repeal were ongoing and the White House noted the totemic importance of Section 526 in 2011.

Back in 2011 the oil price might have been conducive to a synthetic-fuel-from-coal effort. A cheap start might have been to convert the Great Plains synthetic natural gas plant in North Dakota to making diesel and jet fuel. Instead that plant is now being converted to make 380,000 tpa of urea. Now a synthetic liquid fuels plant will have to be built from scratch with the big capital cost items being the liquid oxygen plant and the coal gasifiers.

Nevertheless, Section 526 has been repealed after eight years of trying. A couple of other attempts in the National Defense Authorisation Act of 2017 to undo the madness of prior years did not get up. Roll call vote no. 2 (page 644) would have:

“Description: Prohibits funds for executive order mandates from 2013 and 2015 related to green energy benchmarks, climate change boards, councils, and working groups and inclusion of climate change review throughout DOD operations, acquisition, logistics, and planning."
​
That was lost 29 to 30. Roll call vote no 3 (page 646) would have:

“Description: Prohibits DOD from using FY17 funding for the construction or refurbishment of a biofuels facility, subject to a national security waiver."
​
That was lost 29 to 32.


The good news is that attempts to undo the damage are ongoing. This is in an environment in which President Obama has directed that commanders of naval bases be rated upon how much they promote global warming in their commands. And there are also reversals in the march of progress. In Australia the government-funded CSIRO had fired 61 climate scientists because “the science was settled” and therefore there was no use for them. The recently re-elected government has ordered the CSIRO to rehire 15 of these witchdoctors. Geopolitical events might sweep all such nonsense away before the year is out.

​
​


ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/04/section-526-for-a-green-national-defense/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/04/section-526-for-a-green-national-defense/

​



https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/failed-climate-predictions.jpg

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cop22_wheresmymoney_scr.jpg?w=720


​





So, you think the historic global temperature records are reliable?

Here's how the temperature records for the ocean (remember, that's 70% of the earth's surface) were compiled.



ERI= Engine room intake
Bucket= (literally) throwing a canvas bucket overboard (I swear to god, I'm not making this up)

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-2.png
Source: Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf


They haven't got a frickin' clue whether global temperatures are warmer or not.



​

ht tps://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-2.png
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-2.png


ht tps://judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/

ht tp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf


___________________

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is real and has been measured in the lab. A real greenhouse works by inhibiting convective cooling. The greenhouse effect works by inhibiting radiative cooling.


That said, how important or unimportant the "Greenhouse Effect" is not known, for two reasons:
(1) In the absence of feedbacks, doubling CO2 produces ~1.2C (Lindzen’s number). Unimportant. The rest depends on feedbacks (water vapor and clouds being most important) that are not well understood.
(2) The feedbacks cannot be modeled because of computational intractability. They have to be parameterized. The parameters have to be tuned to best hindcast. Tuning raises the presently insoluble attribution problem.

-Rud Istvan
 
Last edited:


This is a developing story. Some things that get reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong...
-NPR​






You ain't kidding.
No shit, Sherlock?
​



​
 


RICO Charges Against ‘Climate Deniers’: A Case of Goose and Gander

August 29, 2016
by Dr. Tim Ball


As the people in power, like Al Gore and the White House, see the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) losing public interest they resort to nastier tactics to win the day. It won’t. Instead, it makes more people aware that something is wrong. People despise bullying and when the force of government and the courts are used to silence or intimidate they side with the oppressed. As Shakespeare said in Measure for Measure,

O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
​


Consider the recent use of RICO, defined as the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: a U.S. law, enacted in 1970, allowing victims of organized crime to sue those responsible for punitive damages.​

Technically, the charges were filed under Criminally Influenced and Corruptions Organizations Act (CICO) because the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands brought them. One media outlet reported that,

A group of Democratic state attorneys general and former Vice President Al Gore have announced the creation of a coalition of “top law enforcement officials” to investigate whether oil companies committed fraud in order to hide the effects their businesses have on global climate.

Speaking at a press conference at his Manhattan office Tuesday afternoon, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the group would look for “creative ways” to use existing law to investigate whether “fossil fuel companies” have “profited from the confusion” those companies have allegedly sown over global warming.
​


Extensive debate ensued over the suppression of free speech, control of science, and other restrictive practices in a supposedly free society. It caused retraction of many of the charges and exposure of apparently unethical or even illegal activities by those bringing the charges. WUWT did a good job reporting and exposing the sequence of events.

Keywords or phrases are a phenomenon of the search engine society. Consider the following from the commentary so far. Victims of organized crime; committed fraud; hide the effects on global climate; profit from the confusion. Now turn those charges back on the individuals, groups, and politicians who instigated, propagated and disseminated the entire deception that is the AGW hypothesis. Consider filing RICO charges against them.

It is likely the politicians are protected from such charges, which is why people are angry at all politicians; there is no accountability. Space precludes a complete recounting of what, how, and why the real racketeering occurred. Details are laid out in my book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. They are more succinct for a wider audience in a book due for release shortly. I refer to it as a Revised Summary for Policymakers (RSPM).

RICO charges brought by the AGs claimed that Exxon knew the truth and sought and paid scientists (deniers) to create a false truth. Now consider RICO charges against Senators Al Gore and Timothy Wirth and all the scientists who participated in the promotion and dissemination of the false AGW hypothesis.

People know Al Gore and his career, but few know much about Wirth. Here is a brief Wikipedia entry that provides sufficient context.

Following two decades of elected politics, Wirth was national Co-chair of the Clinton-Gore campaign, and served in the U.S. Department of State as the first Undersecretary for Global Affairs from 1993 to 1997. He led U.S. foreign policy in the areas of refugees, population, environment, science, human rights and narcotics He chaired the United States Delegation at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Kyoto Climate Conference until he resigned from the Administration in late 1997 to accept Ted Turner’s invitation to be President of the newly created United Nations Foundation.
​
His concerns were almost the same as those listed by the Club of Rome. In a remarkable 2007 interview with Frontline on PBS, Wirth provides a context for the manipulation of the AGW story and a basis for RICO charges. In response to the question

… What was it in the late ’80s, do you think, that made the issue [of global warming] take off ?​

Wirth replied

I think a number of things happened in the late 1980s. First of all, there were the [NASA scientist Jim] Hansen hearings [in 1988]. … We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change. … And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness.
​


The product for sale is not a fossil fuel, a physical product, but a political idea with far more value in power and profit. It is selling advocacy, something that under the name of advertising advocacy was a major debate at the time. The issue was the legitimacy of a private company paying for advertising that sold an idea, a political view, rather than a tangible product. The situation with Wirth is similar. It is also a forerunner to crony capitalism. You need scientists or experts to provide or at least appear to provide legitimacy and credibility

They asked Wirth,

“How did you know about Jim Hansen?”
​
He replied.

… I don’t remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you’re going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you’re part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.
​


Paradoxically, by their definition, this labels Hansen as a “denier” because he is far outside the scientific community.

The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time. …

To which Wirth replies,

Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the [press] — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.
​


There are a number of implications in that statement. It was only brave because it was outrageous and unsubstantiated. Hansen knew he would not have approval from “up the line.” But, how far up the line did he have to go? He was appointed head of NASA GISS eight years earlier in 1981 and as we know from the later revolt of astronauts at NASA, few knew what was going on. He knew his statement was without scientific support. It wasn’t brave because he knew he was saying what the politicians like Gore wanted to hear and undoubtedly was told they would protect him. Hansen’s boss, John Theon told me when I asked him why Hansen wasn’t reigned in that the word came from above to leave him alone. Wirth was backed by Al Gore, who was in his Presidential campaign in 1988.

Wirth then speaks about the degree of deception involved in Hansen’s 1988 appearance.

What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?



Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …
​


So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …


Did Exxon or any of the climate change deniers ever do anything like this? Is this committing fraud? Hansen’s information was apparently designed to “hide the effects of climate change,” natural climate change that is. It was designed to allow “profit from the confusion.” The profit was political at first, but became financial later for many like Gore and others.

Hansen continued his distortion of the science even though, as Wirth said, he was working for the Federal government. He also continued his activism, including protesting and being arrested outside the White House in contradiction of the Hatch Act.

Exxon or climate change deniers didn’t alter official modern weather records or alter historic records by eliminating decade long warm periods. They didn’t create a panel to study causes of climate change that only considered human causes. They didn’t let the public believe the panel was studying all causes of climate change. Exxon reportedly spent $16 million on climate research with virtually none of it going to deniers. Meanwhile, from the time Hansen appeared before the Senate Committee in 1988 to 2009, Gore, Wirth, and their political partners directed $79 billion to promotion of the unproven AGW hypothesis. It remains unproven. The total cost to societies from the implementation of unnecessary energy and environmental policies is in the trillions.

It is clear who the racketeers are. But then, it may not be racketeering but politics as usual.


ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/29/rico-charges-against-climate-deniers-a-case-of-goose-and-gander/


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...t-climate-deniers-a-case-of-goose-and-gander/


_______________________________________


Plaintiff
v.

CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, CERES INC., ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND INC., GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLP, FORD FOUNDATION, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL CORP., ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION CORP., THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CORP., THE SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION CORP., WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE TRUST, US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CORP., GLOBAL CALL FOR CLIMATE ACTION CORP., GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT US LLP, ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CORP., FENTON COMMUNICATIONS CORP., WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC., GREENPEACE INC., GREENPEACE FUND INC., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL CORP., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH US CORP., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (ACTION) INC., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INC., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND CORP., NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC., NRDC ACTION FUND CORP., SIERRA CLUB CORP., EARTHJUSTICE CORP., THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC., THE PEW MEMORIAL TRUST, J. HOWARD PEW FREEDOM TRUST, MABEL PEW MYRIN TRUST, J.N. PEW JR. CHARITABLE TRUST, THE JOHN D. AND CATHERINE T. MACARTHUR FOUNDATION, THE WILLIAM & FLORA HEWLETT FOUNDATION, THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION, TIDES FOUNDATION CORPORATION, TIDES CENTER CORPORATION, CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION, THE ENERGY FOUNDATION, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-99,
Defendants


_______________________________________




Quite understandably and with good reason. I burst out laughing.

Insects ?
Roadkill ?

Are you kidding me ? Has the educational system really gotten to that point in this country? Do you actually believe that stuff ?



by Marlo Lewis, Ph.D.

In 2006–2007, authors like Al Gore, Joseph Romm, and Fred Pearce popularized scary climate change impact scenarios, such as ice sheet disintegration and catastrophic sea-level rise, dramatic increases in extreme-weather frequency and/or severity, and climate-destabilizing releases of CO2 and methane from melting permafrost. Recent studies undercut the credibility of those scenarios. A partial list follows:

King et al. (2012): The rate of Antarctic ice loss is not accelerating and translates to less than one inch of sea-level rise per century.

Faezeh et al. (2013): Greenland’s four main outlet glaciers are projected to contribute 19 to 30 millimeters (0.7 to 1.1 inches) to sea level rise by 2200 under a mid-range warming scenario (2.8°C by 2100) and 29 to 49 millimeters (1.1 to 1.9 inches) under a high-end warming scenario (4.5°C by 2100).

Weinkle et al. (2012): There is no trend in the strength or frequency of land-falling hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years.

Chenoweth and Divine (2012): There is no trend in the strength or frequency of tropical cyclones in the main Atlantic hurricane development corridor over the past 370 years.

Bouwer (2011): There is no trend in hurricane-related damages since 1900 once economic loss data are adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.

NOAA: There is no trend since 1950 in the frequency of strong (F3-F5) U.S. tornadoes.

National Climate Data Center: There is no trend since 1900 in U.S. soil moisture as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

Hirsch and Ryberg (2011): There is no trend in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years.

Dmitrenko et al. (2011): Even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested, permafrost thaw in the Siberian shelf will not exceed 10 meters in depth by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium, whereas the bulk of methane stores are trapped roughly 200 meters below the sea floor.

Kessler et al. (2011): Microbes digested the methane released during the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Any warming-induced “large-scale releases of methane from hydrate in the deep ocean are likely to be met by a similarly rapid methanotrophic response.”

Sistla et al. (2013): Over the past two decades, warming increased net eco-system carbon storage in the Arctic tundra as the growth of woody biomass outpaced the increase in CO2 emissions from subsoil microbial activity.

Goklany (2009): Global deaths and death rates related to extreme weather have declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since the 1920s.

Range et al. (2012): There is no evidence of CO2-related mortalities of juvenile or adult mussels “even under conditions that far exceed the worst-case scenarios for future ocean acidification.”​
​

​
ht tps://www.masterresource.org/baker-institute-rice-university/rice-baker-climate-embarrassment/

https://www.masterresource.org/baker-institute-rice-university/rice-baker-climate-embarrassment/

​


Computer models of immensely complex (possibly chaotic), non-linear, dynamic systems using coefficients that are unknown in combination with uncertain assumptions are neither science nor evidence.

Correlation is not causation.

Anyone who tries to tell you that the immature, primitive field known as “climate science” represents “settled science” is not being truthful.

__________________________________


Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness. In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.
-Judith H. Curry, Ph.D.
ht tps://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/truthiness-and-factiness-in-politicized-scientific-debates/

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/03/truthiness-and-factiness-in-politicized-scientific-debates/
 
Last edited:


1 Year:


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=1y&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


2 Years:


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=2y&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


5 Years:


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=5y&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


9 Years:


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=9y&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


Maximum Available:

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=my&q=l&l=off&z=l&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US





1 Year (with S&P 500):

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=1y&q=l&l=off&z=l&c=%5EGSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


2 Years (with S&P 500):

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=2y&q=l&l=off&z=l&c=%5EGSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


5 Years (with S&P 500):

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=5y&q=l&l=off&z=l&c=%5EGSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


9 Years (with S&P 500):

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=9y&q=l&l=off&z=l&c=%5EGSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


Maximum available (with S&P 500):

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=TDW&t=my&q=l&l=off&z=l&c=%5EGSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US



​
 
Last edited:


Subject of 'Lost on a Mountain in Maine' dies at 90

By DAVID SHARP
Oct. 11, 2016

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e243...7ba5/subject-book-lost-mountain-maine-dies-90

ht tp://bigstory.ap.org/article/e243a8a4d6174c80b24e8c5a99517ba5/subject-book-lost-mountain-maine-dies-90

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Donn Fendler, who as a boy survived nine days alone on Maine's tallest mountain in 1939 and later wrote a book about the ordeal, has died at 90.

Fendler collaborated with Joseph B. Egan on a book, "Lost on a Mountain in Maine," which was required reading for many fourth-graders in Maine. He also enjoyed visiting schools to tell his story.

He died Monday in Bangor, Maine, after being hospitalized for failing health, family members said.

"He loved Maine. He loved kids. He loved telling his story to kids to help them keep their cool if they get lost," his niece, Nancy Fendler, said.

Fendler said he used techniques learned as a Boy Scout to survive on Mount Katahdin, the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail.

As a 12-year-old, Fendler got lost while hiking and made his way down the mountain and through the woods to the east branch of the Penobscot River, where he was found more than 30 miles from where he started. Bruised and cut, starved and shoeless, he'd survived by eating berries. He had lost 15 pounds.

He never seemed to tire of recounting the tale to children.

"I tell every one of them they have something inside them they don't know they have," he told The Associated Press in 2011. "When it comes up to a bad situation, they're going to find out how tough a person they are in the heart and the mind — it's called the will to live."

Fendler lived in Clarksville, Tennessee, but had a summer home in Newport, Maine, the town where his family, from Rye, New York, was vacationing at Sebasticook Lake when he got lost.

Many feared the worst when Fendler became separated from the others on Katahdin, setting off a search by state troopers, National Guardsmen, paper mill workers, loggers and guides.

He later received a medal from President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House, was honored with a parade and featured in Life magazine.

Fendler's twin, Ryan Fendler, said the trauma of spending so many nights lost in the woods didn't lessen his brother's affection for Maine. He and his brother celebrated their 90th birthdays together in August in Maine.

"He had a great heart and a great sense of humor," Ryan Fendler said, describing his brother as a natural-born athlete who beat the rest of the party to the top of Katahdin before starting down on his own.

Ryan Cook, who's working on a movie adaptation of "Lost on a Mountain in Maine," posted a video on Facebook announcing the death.

"Donn Fendler's legacy will live on forever in the state of Maine, not only because of his story and the book but because of the character of the man he was, and how deeply he cared about other human beings, especially children," Cook said in his online tribute.

​

​
 




👣

👣​

👣​

👣​


​

____________________________



________________________________


http://imgur.com/gallery/xWs86

FlagOnThePlay
FlagOnTheArgument

________________________________


________________________________


______________________________



ht tps://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

https://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

​


_______________________________


__________________________

"Climate Continues To Change" thread
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=985930&page=56

_____________________________

IsoBl thread
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1380212&page=5

_______________________________
Pogo:



_______________________________

NOAA calculation of oceanic areas, volumes and average depths:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
ht tps://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html


Oceanicvolumes
Oceanicareas
Oceanicdepths
AverageOceanicDepths
OceanArea
OceanAreas
OceanDepths

361,900,000 Square kilometers
1,335,000,000 Cubic kilometers
3,688 Average depth (m)


Code: 
Area+
(km2)

% Ocean
Area

Volume
(km3)

% Ocean
Volume

Avg. Depth
(m)

Max Depth
(m)


Arctic Ocean 15,558,000 4.3 18,750,000 1.4 1205 5567 
Atlantic Ocean 85,133,000 23.5 310,410,900 23.3 3646 8486 
Baltic Sea 406,000 0.1 20,900 0.0 51 392 
Mediterranean 2,967,000 0.8 4,390,000 0.3 1480 5139 
North Atlantic 41,490,000 11.5 146,000,000 10.9 3519 8486 
South Atlantic 40,270,000 11.1 160,000,000 12.0 3973 8240 
Indian Ocean 70,560,000 19.5 264,000,000 19.8 3741 7906 
Pacific Ocean 161,760,000 44.7 660,000,000 49.4 4080 10,803 
North Pacific 77,010,000 21.3 331,000,000 24.8 4298 10,803# 
South Pacific 84,750,000 23.4 329,000,000 24.6 3882 10,753 
South China Sea 6,963,000 1.9 9,880,000 0.7 1419 7352 
Southern Ocean* 21,960,000 6.1 71,800,000 5.4 3270 7075 
Total: 361,900,000¤ 100.0 1,335,000,000 100.0 3688 10,803 
error estimates 0.10% 1%   

+ Boundaries between oceans vary depending upon agency, making comparisons with other published estimates difficult. 
¤ Total surface area of Earth is 510,082,000 sq. km. The oceans cover ~70.9%.


https://68.media.tumblr.com/1b09b48206fcbbe52d24f864e5e57025/tumblr_ogkbh1zQVh1s2h29io10_r1_250.jpg

_______________________________

...it is dawning upon people that 70 percent of the protein we eat has its origins in fossil fuels...

...solar panels are cheap only because the diesel and coal used in their making are very cheap...

-David Archibald
ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/07/nuclear-breakthrough-needed/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/07/nuclear-breakthrough-needed/


http://www.bikeforums.net/images/smilies/trainwreck.gif


_________________________
 
Last edited:


Speaking of poor journalism or political bias or both, the North Dakota Pipeline reporting is a classic example:

Checking the facts once again


1.CLAIM: The pipeline encroaches on indigenous lands.

TRUTH: The Dakota Access Pipeline traverses a path on private property and does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. 100% of landowners in North Dakota voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction of the pipeline on their property. Nearly the entire route of the 1,172 mile pipeline has been sited and approved by relevant state and federal agencies and more than 22% of the pipeline has already been completed. To the extent possible, the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to parallel existing infrastructure, such as the Northern Border Pipeline, to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and areas of potential cultural significance.

2. CLAIM: The pipeline exposes the Tribe’s water supply to contamination.

TRUTH: Pipelines are – by far – the safest way to transport energy liquids and gases. Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day. That includes the Northern Border natural gas pipeline – built in 1982 – that parallels the planned crossing for Dakota Access for 40 miles as well as high voltage transmission power lines. Once completed, the Dakota Access Pipeline will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world.
In addition, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intake is scheduled to be moved by the end by of the year. The Missouri River intake serving the Tribe is being switched to Mobridge, South Dakota, nearly 50 miles south of the current water intake and about 70 miles south of the planned Dakota Access river crossing.

3. CLAIM: The tribal community was not part of the discussion.

TRUTH: 389 meetings took place between the U.S. Army Corps and 55 tribes about the Dakota Access project. In addition the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe met individually with the U.S. Army Corps nearly a dozen times to discuss archaeological and other surveys conducted to finalize the Dakota Access route.
Based on input from a number of sources, the pipeline route was adjusted in September 2014, to shorten the pipeline by 11 miles, avoid buildings and other structures, and cross fewer waterways and roads.

4. CLAIM: The pipeline is disrupting areas of cultural significance.

TRUTH: Safeguarding and ensuring the longevity of culturally significant artifacts and sites is of interest to all Americans. That’s why the Dakota Access Pipeline traverses a path on private property. And the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to parallel existing infrastructure, such as the Northern Border Pipeline and high voltage transmission power lines. Therefore the Dakota Access route has already been under construction twice before. Designing the route to parallel existing infrastructure mitigates any additional impacts to the environment and avoids areas of potential cultural significance.

Additionally, on site there are professional archeologists who are able to identify and properly tend to artifacts and evidence of culturally significant sites if any not identified by the surveys are discovered.

5. CLAIM: On site protests have been peaceful.

TRUTH: Unfortunately, the emotionally charged atmosphere has led to several outbreaks of violence which has endangered the safety of the workers and the protesters themselves. Protesters have rushed police lines, threatened and assaulted private security officers, and thrown rocks and bottles at workers. And let’s remember, the work that is being done is in full accordance with all state and federal regulations and on private property – not on reservation land.

6. CLAIM: A young girl from the Tribe was mauled by a security dog.

TRUTH: This is a doctored photo. The original is from a June 2012 article from the New York Daily News.

ht tp://standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/
http://standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/

ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/trump-on-the-paris-climate-agreement-im-looking-at-it-very-closely/#comment-2349739

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11...-looking-at-it-very-closely/#comment-2349739




​




There are 3,141 counties in the United States.


Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.


Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 2.5 million votes.



In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.


​
 
Last edited:


The Inmates Are In Charge of the Asylum

California targets dairy cows to combat global warming


By TERENCE CHEA
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e507...rnia-targets-dairy-cows-combat-global-warming
Nov. 29, 2016

* California Targets Dairy Cows in Climate Fight

GALT, Calif. (AP) — California is taking its fight against global warming to the farm. The nation's leading agricultural state is now targeting greenhouse gases produced by dairy cows and other livestock.

Despite strong opposition from farmers, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that for the first time regulates heat-trapping gases from livestock operations and landfills.

Cattle and other farm animals are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Methane is released when they belch, pass gas and make manure.

"If we can reduce emissions of methane, we can really help to slow global warming," said Ryan McCarthy, a science advisor for the California Air Resources Board, which is drawing up rules to implement the new law.

Livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, with beef and dairy production accounting for the bulk of it, according to a 2013 United Nations report.

Since the passage of its landmark global warming law in 2006, California has been reducing carbon emissions from cars, trucks, homes and factories, while boosting production of renewable energy.

In the nation's largest milk-producing state, the new law requires dairies and other livestock operations to reduce methane emissions 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. State officials are developing the regulations, which take effect in 2024.

"We expect that this package ... and everything we're doing on climate, does show an effective model forward for others," McCarthy said.

But dairy farmers say the new regulations will drive up costs when they're already struggling with five years of drought, low milk prices and rising labor costs. They're also concerned about a newly signed law that will boost overtime pay for farmworkers.

"It just makes it more challenging. We're continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don't exist," said Paul Sousa, director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen.

The dairy industry could be forced to move production to states and countries with fewer regulations, leading to higher emissions globally, Sousa said.

"We think it's very foolish for the state of California to be taking this position," said Rob Vandenheuvel, general manager for the Milk Producers Council. "A single state like California is not going to make a meaningful impact on the climate."

Regulators are looking for ways to reduce so-called enteric emissions — methane from the bodily functions of cows. That could eventually require changes to what cattle eat.

But the biggest target is dairy manure, which accounts for about a quarter of the state's methane emissions.

State regulators want more farmers to reduce emissions with methane digesters, which capture methane from manure in large storage tanks and convert the gas into electricity.

The state has set aside $50 million to help dairies set up digesters, but farmers say that's not nearly enough to equip the state's roughly 1,500 dairies.

New Hope Dairy, which has 1,500 cows in Sacramento County, installed a $4 million methane digester in 2013, thanks to state grants and a partnership with the local utility, which operates the system to generate renewable power for the grid.

But co-owner Arlin Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer, says he couldn't afford one if he had to buy and run it himself.

"The bottom line is it's going to negatively impact the economics of the California dairy industry," Van Groningen said of the new law. "In the dairy business, the margins are so slim that something like this will force us out of state."

State officials say they're committed to making sure the new regulations work for farmers and the environment.

"There's a real opportunity here to get very significant emissions reductions at fairly low cost, and actually in a way that can bring economic benefits to farmers," Ryan said.


more...

​



​
 
$100,000 Prize !!

$100,000 Challenge unmet




http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

by Douglas J. Keenan

It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.

Some people, though, assert that the statistical analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures have been increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. Anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation should be able to win the contest.





A time series is any series of measurements taken at regular time intervals. Examples include the following: prices on the New York Stock Exchange at the close of each business day; the total rainfall in England each month; the total wheat harvest in Canada each year. Another example is the average global temperature each year.

Most data sets used in the study of climate are time series. Yet there are almost no climate scientists that have competence in the statistical analysis of time series.

Statistical incompetence has misled climate scientists into believing that they can distinguish between purely random series and series generated with a trend. The purpose of the Contest is to show that such a belief is false, at least for the series of global temperatures.

Terms of the Contest
The file Series1000.txt contains 1000 simulated time series. Each series has length 135: the same length as that of the most commonly studied series of global temperatures (which span 1880–2014). The 1000 series were generated as follows. First, 1000 random series were obtained (for more details, see below). Then, some of those series were randomly selected and had a trend added to them. Each added trend was either 1°C/century or −1°C/century. For comparison, a trend of 1°C/century is greater than the trend that is claimed for global temperatures.

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person who submits an entry that correctly identifies at least 900 series: which series were generated without a trend and which were generated with a trend.

For instructions on how to submit an entry, see the Contest Entry page. Each entry must be accompanied by a payment of $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries. There is a limit of one entry per person.

A person submitting an entry must also specify their real name. Names will be kept confidential, except in very unusual circumstances. If someone wins the Contest, though, then their name will be made public. If the name that they specified at submission was not real, then the prize is forfeited.

Anyone considering submitting an entry should read my critique of the statistical analyses that have been done by the IPCC. The critique illustrates some of the potential pitfalls in analyzing the time series.

(During the generation of the 1000 series, in the first step described above, the initial 1000 random series were obtained via a trendless statistical model, which was fit to a series of global temperatures. The trendless statistical model is preferable to the trending statistical model relied upon by the IPCC, when the models are compared via relative likelihood.)

After someone submits an entry to the Contest, the entry is assessed as to whether it is prize-winning. The person who submitted the entry is then informed about the result of the assessment. No further information is provided to the submitter: in particular, the submitter is not informed about how many of the 1000 series their entry correctly identified.

The Contest closes at the end of 30 November 2016 (UTC), or when someone submits a prize-winning answer, whichever comes first.

When the Contest closes, the computer program (including the random seed) that generated the 1000 series will be posted here. As an additional check, the file Answers1000.txt identifies which series were generated by a trendless process and which by a trending process. The file is encrypted. The encryption key and method will also be posted here when the Contest closes.


UPDATE [2016-12-01]. The Contest has now closed. No winning entry was received. The ANSWER, the PROGRAM (Maple worksheet), and the function to produce the file Answers1000.txt (with the random seed 7654321) are now available. There are also some Remarks on the Contest.



​


​
 


To run a sub-4:00 minute mile, you've got to run at a rate of 15 mph.


(H. sapiens are pretty amazing animals)

Code: 
	Running Rate			
				
1.0	mph	=	60:00	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
1.3	"	=	48:00	"
1.5	"	=	40:00	"
1.8	"	=	34:17	"
2.0	"	=	30:00	"
2.3	mph	=	26:40	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
2.5	"	=	24:00	"
2.8	"	=	21:49	"
3.0	"	=	20:00	"
3.3	"	=	18:28	"
3.5	mph	=	17:09	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
3.8	"	=	16:00	"
4.0	"	=	15:00	"
4.3	"	=	14:07	"
4.5	"	=	13:20	"
4.8	mph	=	12:38	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
5.0	"	=	12:00	"
5.3	"	=	11:26	"
5.5	"	=	10:55	"
5.8	"	=	10:26	"
6.0	mph	=	10:00	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
6.3	"	=	9:36	"
6.5	"	=	9:14	"
6.8	"	=	8:53	"
7.0	"	=	8:34	"
7.3	mph	=	8:17	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
7.5	"	=	8:00	"
7.8	"	=	7:45	"
8.0	"	=	7:30	"
8.3	"	=	7:16	"
8.5	mph	=	7:04	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
8.8	"	=	6:51	"
9.0	"	=	6:40	"
9.3	"	=	6:29	"
9.5	"	=	6:19	"
9.8	mph	=	6:09	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
10.0	"	=	6:00	"
10.3	"	=	5:51	"
10.5	"	=	5:43	"
10.8	"	=	5:35	"
11.0	mph	=	5:27	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
11.3	"	=	5:20	"
11.5	"	=	5:13	"
11.8	"	=	5:06	"
12.0	"	=	5:00	"
12.3	mph	=	4:54	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
12.5	"	=	4:48	"
12.8	"	=	4:42	"
13.0	"	=	4:37	"
13.3	"	=	4:32	"
13.5	mph	=	4:27	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
13.8	"	=	4:22	"
14.0	"	=	4:17	"
14.3	"	=	4:13	"
14.5	"	=	4:08	"
14.8	mph	=	4:04	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)
15.0	"	=	4:00	"
15.3	"	=	3:56	"
15.5	"	=	3:52	"
15.8	"	=	3:49	"
16.0	mph	=	3:45	Rate (MM:SS/Mile)


​
 


From the comment section of Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/02/the-two-faced-reality-of-a-clean-energy-future/#comment-832881


As far as I can gather, after over 40 years of research, by tens of thousands of scientists, millions of man hours and billions of £/$’s, are there any credible field studies that reliably report that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes global temperature rise, specifically, man generated Co2 (because of course, it’s not man made, just released by man following accidental, natural sequestration). And that being the case, is there any evidence that raised levels of atmospheric Co2 were the cause of catastrophic weather conditions over the past 650M years?

I would imagine, that after all that well funded scientific study, there would be numerous, hundreds, if not thousands; however, no matter how I search for them, I can’t find any.

Am I using the wrong search terms?

-HotScot
​



The reply:

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/02/the-two-faced-reality-of-a-clean-energy-future/#comment-832894

January 2, 2017 at 5:49 pm


No, there aren’t any that are solid. I looked for both my 2012 ebook The Arts of Truth and for the climate essays in 2014 ebook Blowing Smoke. Here is the essence of why. IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 specifically says the warming from ~1920-1945 was mostly natural; there simply was not enough change in G[reen]H[house]G[ases] for that period to be attributed to the G[reen]H[ouse]E[ffect]. The problem is that the warming from ~1975-2000 is essentially indistinguishable from the earlier period. This introduces the attribution problem. Attributing the second period warming to the GHG is a matter of warmunist faith, not logic or fact or sound science. It is the reason for the paucity of warming attribution papers that is important, not the paucity itself.

You cannot use paleoclimate to answer the attribution question. Gore goofed. Ice cores say delta CO2 lags delta T by ~800 years. But Henry’s law on millennial time scales does not speak to AGW on centennial time scales. And you certainly cannot use deep geological history because the positions of the continents and the planets biology were both different. For example, the carboniferous period had basically two continents, Laurasia and Gondwana. It began with the evolution of lignin bearing woody plants, and ended about 60 million years later with the evolution of white fungi that feed off lignin.

You can best use search terms around attribution or GHE fingerprint. You will find lots of stuff, but precious few sound scientific papers. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its net warming effect is uncertain because of feedbacks, especially from water vapor and clouds. My own estimate is a positive Bode f net feedback of ~0.3 corresponding to observational ECS~ 1.65 compared to CMIP5 median 0.65 corresponding to median model ECS 3.2. So there will likely be some GHE warming. Just not enough for there to ever be any catastrophes.

-Rud Istvan
​


​
 
Super-Surprise said:
http://www.sub2hrs.com/

Who will "step-up" (so to speak) to be the next Roger Bannister?
Click to expand...



To run a marathon in less than two hours will require someone to maintain a pace of 13.1094 miles per hour for 26.2188 consecutive frickin' miles.


Christ, even on a flat paved surface, I can't even ride a bicycle that goddamned fast for ONE mile, much less twenty-six.



​
 


The "Science" Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing


...is there actually any scientific basis for this? Supposedly, it's to be found in a document uttered by EPA back in December 2009, known as the "Endangerment Finding." In said document, the geniuses at EPA purport to find that the emissions of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere are causing a danger to human health and welfare through the greenhouse warming mechanism. But, you ask, is there any actual proof of that? EPA's answer (found in the Endangerment Finding) is the "Three Lines of Evidence". From page 47 of the Endangerment Finding's Technical Support Document:

The attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic activities is based on multiple lines of evidence. The first line of evidence arises from the basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of GHGs, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system. The second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual (Karl et al, 2009). The third line of evidence arises from the use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic).

...have you actually checked the empirical data to see if your "lines of evidence" stand up?




...On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.

The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS)” is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.

Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations[1]. The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan - recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies. . . .

These analysis results [in this Report] would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate - 13 times in fact - that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift...
​



http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog...ly-is-the-science-underlying-climate-alarmism



​
 
Last edited:


And What Is The Scientific Basis For Imposing Energy Poverty On The Masses ?

by Francis Menton
(the "Manhattan Contrarian")




"New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False.'"


A new study published by seasoned researchers takes aim at the heart of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to issue regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The study claims to have “proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false,” according to a press statement put out by Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo. Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo — a statistician, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively — released a study claiming to invalidate EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which allowed the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. “This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed,” the authors say in the release for the second edition of their peer-reviewed work. “Moreover, these research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is, natural factor, impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about,” the researchers say. “In fact, there is no natural factor adjusted warming at all.”​

And the Research Report is just one -- although perhaps the most important -- of many demonstrations of the invalidity of the EF. In his testimony before Congress on March 29, John Christy (one of the authors of the Research Report) also pointed, for example, to the fact that after some thirty years of collecting temperature data, the level of temperatures measured by satellites and weather balloons falls far below the level predicted by the IPCC climate models.

In actual science, when there is a credible demonstration that a hypothesis has been falsified, it becomes incumbent upon the proponents of the hypothesis either to explain or distinguish the claimed falsification, or to abandon the hypothesis. When the "ether" hypothesis was falsified by the Michelson/Morley experiment, it was rather quickly abandoned. But then, the "ether" hypothesis was not invested with particular political baggage. By contrast, when Galileo expounded on the Copernican heliocentric view of the universe, that was viewed as a challenge to his authority and prestige by Pope Urban VIII, who had Galileo tried and imprisoned. Fortunately the facts, and the scientific method, won out in the end. Does anybody today have a good word to say for Urban VIII?

The scientific method will also win out in the end in the matter of the current climate hysteria. It will not help the climate hysterics that they have attempted to claim the label of "science," when in fact they have no idea even what science is. And, unfortunately, "the end" may not come all that quickly, and many, many people stand to be impoverished by the craziness in the meantime.​




http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog...sis-for-imposing-energy-poverty-on-the-masses

​
 


...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time [in this address] on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
​



http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
​
 


The New York Times tells us that Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal. But watch the pea - these jobs are “energy jobs”, not jobs that use energy.

Apparently it takes 79 people to create the same energy through solar as one person does through coal. (And that would be cheaper, how? )


To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year. And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.

In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of U.S. electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar’s minuscule share of 0.90 percent.

…to produce the same amount of electric power as just one coal worker would require two natural gas workers and an amazingly-high 79 solar workers.
-Washington Examiner
​
Cheap energy creates job opportunities in other sectors. Solar energy takes people out of the productive workforce.


-Climate Depot​




​
 


http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change
15 April, 2017
Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.


*MIT atmospheric science professor Richard Lindzen suggests that many claims regarding climate change are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist*


Introduction

For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tended to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners. I will try in this brief article to explain why such claims are, in fact, evidence of the dishonesty of the alarmist position.

The 97% meme:

This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (this body, generally referred to as the IPCC is the body created by the UN to provide ‘authoritative’ assessments of manmade climate change) doesn’t agree with the claim.

Despite the above, I am somewhat surprised that it was necessary to use the various shenanigans described above. Since this issue fully emerged in public almost 30 years ago (and was instantly incorporated into the catechism of political correctness), there has been a huge increase in government funding of the area, and the funding has been predicated on the premise of climate catastrophism. By now, most of the people working in this area have entered in response to this funding. Note that governments have essentially a monopoly over the funding in this area. I would expect that the recipients of this funding would feel obligated to support the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, opposition to this would be a suicidal career move for a young academic. Perhaps the studies simply needed to properly phrase their questions so as to achieve levels of agreement for alarm that would be large though perhaps not as large as was required for the 97% meme especially if the respondents are allowed anonymity.

The ‘warmest years on record’ meme:
(see link for Figure 1a) http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/ )

This simple claim covers a myriad of misconceptions. Under these circumstances, it is sometimes difficult to know where to begin. As in any demonization project, it begins with the ridiculous presumption that any warming whatsoever (and, for that matter, any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come. We know that neither of these presumptions is true. People retire to the Sun Belt rather than to the arctic. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth. The emphasis on ‘warmest years on record’ appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (ie, the increase of temperature) has ceased. Yet, somehow, many people have been led to believe that both statements cannot be simultaneously true. At best, this assumes a very substantial level of public gullibility. The potential importance of the so-called pause (for all we know, this might not be a pause, and the temperature might even cool), is never mentioned and rarely understood. Its existence means that there is something that is at least comparable to anthropogenic forcing. However, the IPCC attribution of most of the recent (and only the recent) warming episode to man depends on the assumption in models that there is no such competitive process.

The focus on the temperature record, itself, is worth delving into a bit. What exactly is this temperature that is being looked at? It certainly can’t be the average surface temperature. Averaging temperatures from places as disparate as Death Valley and Mount Everest is hardly more meaningful than averaging phone numbers in a telephone book (for those of you who still remember phone books). What is done, instead, is to average what are called temperature anomalies. Here, one takes thirty year averages at each station and records the deviations from this average. These are referred to as anomalies and it is the anomalies that are averaged over the globe. The only attempt I know of to illustrate the steps in this process was by the late Stan Grotch at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Figure 1a shows the scatter plot of the station anomalies. Figure 1b then shows the result of averaging these anomalies . Most scientists would conclude that there was a remarkable degree of cancellation and that the result was almost complete cancellation. However, instead, one stretches the temperature scale by almost a factor of 10 so as to make the minuscule changes in Figure 1b look more significant. The result is shown in Figure 1c. There is quite a lot of random noise in Figure 1c, and this noise is a pretty good indication of the uncertainty of the analysis (roughly +/- 0.2C). The usual presentations show something considerably smoother. Sometimes this is the result of smoothing the record with something called running means. It is also the case that Grotch used data from the UK Meteorological Office which was from land based stations. Including data from the ocean leads to smoother looking series but the absolute accuracy of the data is worse given that the ocean data mixes very different measurement techniques (buckets in old ship data, ship intakes after WW1, satellite measurements of skin temperature (which is quite different from surface temperature), and buoy data).

These issues are summarized in Figure 2 which presents an idealized schematic of the temperature record and its uncertainty. We see very clearly that because the rise ceases in 1998, that this implies that 18 of the 18 warmest years on record (for the schematic presentation) have occurred during the last 18 years. We also see that the uncertainty together with the smallness of the changes offers ample scope for adjustments that dramatically alter the appearance of the record (note that uncertainty is rarely indicated on such graphs).

( see link for Figure 2 http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/ )

At this point, one is likely to run into arguments over the minutia of the temperature record, but this would simply amount to muddying the waters so to speak. Nothing can alter the fact that the changes one is speaking about are small. Of course ‘small’ is relative. Consider three measures of smallness.

Figure 3 shows the variations in temperature in Boston over a one month period. The dark blue bars show the actual range of temperatures for each day. The dark gray bars show the climatological range of temperatures for that date, and the light gray bars show the range between the record-breaking low and record-breaking high for that date. In the middle is a red line. The width of that line corresponds to the range of temperature in the global mean temperature anomaly record for the past 175 years. This shows that the temperature change that we are discussing is small compared to our routine sensual experience. Keep this in mind when someone claims to ‘feel’ global warming.

( see link for Figure 3 http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/ )

The next measure is how does the observed change compare with what we might expect from greenhouse warming. Now, CO2 is not the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

When all of them are included, the UN IPCC finds that we are just about at the greenhouse forcing of climate that one expects from a doubling of CO2, and the temperature increase has been about 0.8C. If man’s emissions are responsible for all of the temperature change over that past 60 years, this still points to a lower sensitivity (sensitivity, by convention, generally refers to the temperature increase produced by a doubling of CO2 when the system reaches equilibrium) than produced by the least sensitive models (which claim to have sensitivities of from 1.5-4.5C for a doubling of CO2). And, the lower sensitivities are understood to be unproblematic. However, the IPCC only claims man is responsible for most of the warming. The sensitivity might then be much lower. Of course, the situation is not quite so simple, but calculations do show that for higher sensitivities one has to cancel some (and often quite a lot) of the greenhouse forcing with what was assumed to be unknown aerosol cooling in order for the models to remain consistent with past observations (a recent article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society points out that there are, in fact, quite a number of arbitrary adjustments made to models in order to get some agreement with the past record). As the aerosol forcing becomes less uncertain, we see that high sensitivities have become untenable. This is entirely consistent with the fact that virtually all models used to predict ‘dangerous’ warming over-predict observed warming after the ‘calibration’ periods. That is to say, observed warming is small compared to what the models upon which concerns are based are predicting. This is illustrated in Figure 4. As I have mentioned, uncertainties allow for substantial adjustments in the temperature record. One rather infamous case involved NOAA’s adjustments in a paper by Karl et al that replace the pause with continued warming. But it was easy to show that even with this adjustment, models continued to show more warming than even the ‘adjusted’ time series showed. Moreover, most papers since have rejected the Karl et al adjustment (which just coincidentally came out with much publicity just before the Paris climate conference).

The third approach is somewhat different. Instead of arguing that the change is not small, it argues that the change is ‘unprecedented.’ This is Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick.’ Here, Mann used tree rings from bristle cone pines to estimate Northern Hemisphere temperatures back hundreds of years. This was done by calibrating the tree ring data with surface observations for a thirty year period, and using this calibration to estimate temperatures in the distant past in order to eliminate the medieval warm period. Indeed, this reconstruction showed flat temperatures for the past thousand years. The usual test for such a procedure would be to see how the calibration worked for observations after the calibration period. Unfortunately, the results failed to show the warming found in the surface data. The solution was starkly simple and stupid. The tree ring record was cut off at the end of the calibration period and replaced by the actual surface record. In the Climategate emails (Climategate refers to a huge release of emails from various scientists supporting alarm where the suppression of opposing views, the intimidation of editors, the manipulation of data, etc. were all discussed), this was referred to as Mann’s trick.

The whole point of the above was to make clear that we are not concerned with warming per se, but with how much warming. It is essential to avoid the environmental tendency to regard anything that may be bad in large quantities to be avoided at any level however small. In point of fact small warming is likely to be beneficial on many counts. If you have assimilated the above, you should be able to analyze media presentations like this one to see that amidst all the rhetoric, the author is pretty much saying nothing while even misrepresenting what the IPCC says.

The extreme weather meme:

Every line weather forecaster knows that extreme events occur someplace virtually every day. The present temptation to attribute these normally occurring events to climate change is patently dishonest. Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.

The situation with respect to extreme temperatures actually contradicts not just observations but basic meteorological theory. Figure 5 shows a map of temperatures for North America on February 27, 2008. Extreme temperatures at any location occur when air motions carry air from the coldest or warmest points on the map. Now, in a warmer climate, it is expected that the temperature difference between the tropics and the high latitudes will decrease. Thus the range of possible extremes will be reduced. More important is the fact that the motions that carry these temperatures arise from a process called baroclinic instability, and this instability derives from the magnitude of the aforementioned temperature difference. Thus, in a warmer world, these winds will be weaker and less capable of carrying extreme temperatures to remote locations. Claims of greater extremes in temperature simply ignore the basic physics, and rely, for their acceptance, on the ignorance of the audience.

The claims of extreme weather transcend the usual use of misleading claims. They often amount to claims for the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. The object of the claims is simply to be as scary as possible, and if that requires claiming the opposite of the true situation, so be it.

Sea level rise:

Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years. Until the advent of satellites, sea level was essentially measured with tide gauges which measure the sea level relative to the land level. Unfortunately, the land level is also changing, and as Emery and Aubrey note, tectonics are the major source of change at many locations. Beginning in 1979 we began to use satellites to measure actual sea level. The results were surprisingly close to the previous tide gauge estimates, but slightly higher, but one sees from Wunsch et al (DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1840.1) that one is in no position to argue that small differences from changing methodologies represents acceleration. Regardless, the changes are small compared to the claims that suggest disastrous changes. However, even in the early 1980’s advocates of warming alarm like S. Schneider argued that sea level would be an easily appreciated scare tactic. The fact that people like Al Gore and Susan Solomon (former head of the IPCC’s Scientific Assessment) have invested heavily in ocean front property supports the notion that the issue is propagandistic rather than scientific.

Arctic sea ice:

Satellites have been observing arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice since 1979. Every year there is a pronounced annual cycle where the almost complete winter coverage is much reduced each summer. During this period there has been a noticeable downtrend is summer ice in the arctic (with the opposite behavior in the Antarctic), though in recent years, the coverage appears to have stabilized. In terms of climate change, 40 years is, of course, a rather short interval. Still, there have been the inevitable attempts to extrapolate short period trends leading to claims that the arctic should have already reached ice free conditions. Extrapolating short term trends is obviously inappropriate. Extrapolating surface temperature changes from dawn to dusk would lead to a boiling climate in days. This would be silly. The extrapolation of arctic summer ice coverage looks like it might be comparably silly. Moreover, although the satellite coverage is immensely better than what was previously available, the data is far from perfect. The satellites can confuse ice topped with melt water with ice free regions. In addition, temperature might not be the main cause of reduced sea ice coverage. Summer ice tends to be fragile, and changing winds play an important role in blowing ice out of the arctic sea. Associating changing summer sea ice coverage with climate change is, itself, dubious. Existing climate models hardly unambiguously predict the observed behavior. Predictions for 2100 range from no change to complete disappearance. Thus, it cannot be said that the sea ice behavior confirms any plausible prediction.

It is sometimes noted that concerns for disappearing arctic sea ice were issued in 1922, suggesting that such behavior is not unique to the present. The data used, at that time, came from the neighborhood of Spitzbergen. A marine biologist and climate campaigner has argued that what was described was a local phenomenon, but, despite the claim, the evidence presented by the author is far from conclusive. Among other things, the author was selective in his choice of ‘evidence.’

All one can say, at this point, is that the behavior of arctic sea ice represents one of the numerous interesting phenomena that the earth presents us with, and for which neither the understanding nor the needed records exist. It probably pays to note that melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Moreover, man has long dreamt of the opening of this Northwest Passage. It is curious that it is now viewed with alarm. Of course, as Mencken noted, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” The environmental movement has elevated this aim well beyond what Mencken noted.

Polar bear meme:

I suspect that Al Gore undertook considerable focus-group research to determine the remarkable effectiveness of the notion that climate change would endanger polar bears. His use of an obviously photo shopped picture of a pathetic polar bear on an ice float suggests this. As Susan Crockford, a specialist in polar bear evolution, points out, there had indeed been a significant decrease in polar bear population in the past due to hunting and earlier due to commercial exploitation of polar bear fur. This has led to successful protective measures and sufficient recovery of polar bear population, that hunting has again been permitted. There is no evidence that changes in summer sea ice have had any adverse impact on polar bear population, and, given that polar bears can swim for over a hundred miles, there seems to be little reason to suppose that it would. Nonetheless, for the small community of polar bear experts, the climate related concerns have presented an obvious attraction.

Ocean acidification:

This is again one of those obscure claims that sounds scary but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Ever since the acid rain scare, it has been realized that the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it. In point of fact, the ocean is basic rather than acidic (ie, its ph is always appreciably higher than 7, and there is no possibility of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 bringing it down to 7; note that ph is a measure of acidity or basicness: values greater than 7 are basic and less than 7 acid.), and the purported changes simply refer to making the ocean a bit less basic. However, such a more correct description would lack the scare component. As usual, there is so much wrong with this claim that it takes a fairly long article to go over it all. I recommend the following source.

Death of coral reefs:

The alleged death of coral reefs is partly linked to the acidification issue above, and as we see, the linkage is almost opposite to what is claimed. There is also the matter of warming per se leading to coral bleaching. A typical alarmist presentation can be found here.

The article is behind a pay wall, but most universities provide access to Nature. The reasoned response to this paper is provided here.

As Steele, the author of the above, points out, bleaching has common causes other than warming and is far from a death sentence for corals whose capacity to recover is substantial. This article is a bit polemical, but essentially correct.

Global warming as the cause of everything:

As we see from the above, there is a tendency to blame everything unpleasant on global warming. The absurd extent of this tendency is illustrated on the following here. That hasn’t stopped the EPA from using such stuff to claim large health benefits for its climate change policies. Moreover, I fear that with so many claims, there is always the question ‘what about ….?’ Hardly anyone has the time and energy to deal with the huge number of claims. Fortunately, most are self-evidently absurd. Nation magazine recently came up with what is a bit of a champion is this regard. CO2, it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher). The Nation article is typical in that it makes many bizarre claims in a brief space. It argues that a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus led to temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Of course, no one can claim that the earth is subject to such a runaway, but even on Venus, the hot surface depends primarily on the closeness of Venus to the sun and the existence of a dense sulfuric acid cloud covering the planet. Relatedly, Mars, which also has much more CO2 than the earth, is much further from the sun and very cold. As we have seen many times already, such matters are mere details when one is in the business of scaring the public.

Concluding remarks:

The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.





​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EG2001
Working in adult industry in 2001
Replies
3
Views
548
neon_noodle
neon_noodle
M
MFM working away
Replies
5
Views
2K
Wisconsin1965
W
M
Working away from home.
Replies
16
Views
2K
Dave88ITA
Dave88ITA
F
George Wendt, actor who drank and quipped his way through 269 episodes of Cheers as the barfly Norm has passed Away
Replies
1
Views
454
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
Mello_SixtyNine
Fixing California after the wildfires
Replies
4
Views
611
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
Back
Top