Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.
The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.
The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.
The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments. …
The question is what would the temperature be if they hadn’t been filling the sky with geoengineering contrails? Oh yeah, I forgot, that’s a conspiracy theory. Just keep your head down and you won’t notice.
State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione asked the Legislature to create a Texas Bullion Depository, where Texas could store its gold, which is now in New York, and where others could keep their precious metals….
US Containerized Exports Plunge Off the Chart
Hooda thought I’d appreciate the blogging of a former reagan appointee. Reagan was a catastrophe in many ways, but lately I’ve come to suspect that it was more of VICE president Bush’s enterprise than reagan’s, especially after a bush family friend shot reagan, an event which marked a sudden decline in his mental acuity. Americans have no difficulty analyzing foreign events for such covert agendas but are still pollyannish about their own political system. On the other hand, Paul Craig Roberts seems to have made the leap of disbelief.
The defining events of our time are the collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, jobs offshoring, and financial deregulation. In these events we find the basis of our foreign policy problems and our economic problems.
The United States has always had a good opinion of itself, but with the Soviet collapse self-satisfaction reached new heights. We became the exceptional people, the indispensable people, the country chosen by history to exercise hegemony over the world. This neoconservative doctrine releases the US government from constraints of international law and allows Washington to use coercion against sovereign states in order to remake the world in its own image.
To protect Washington’s unique Uni-power status that resulted from the Soviet collapse, Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 penned what is known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. This doctrine is the basis for Washington’s foreign policy. The doctrine states:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
In March of this year the Council on Foreign Relations extended this doctrine to China. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/cfr-says-china-must-be-defeated-tpp-is-essential-to-that.html)
Washington is now committed to blocking the rise of two large nuclear-armed countries. This commitment is the reason for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda. China is now confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington’s control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests.
9/11 served to launch the neoconservatives’ war for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 also served to launch the domestic police state. While civil liberties have shriveled at home, the US has been at war for almost the entirety of the 21st century, wars that have cost us, according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, at least $6 trillion dollars. These wars have gone very badly. They have destabilized governments in an important energy producing area. And the wars have vastly multiplied the “terrorists,” the quelling of which was the official reason for the wars. …
You have to question whether the neocons are functioning as useful idiots for a higher level of planning, such as the wall street financial interests which made china into an industrial powerhouse at US expense. Certainly the CFR’s belligerence is consistent with their bankster funding. It can’t be stressed enough: it’s the BANKING/military/industrial complex. War is the most efficient way to drive a government further into debt, and government debt just happens to be a major profit center for the central banking cabal that controls the nonfederal nonreserve.
You don’t have to agree with everything they say to find something useful here. Sorry for the ads, but this is Alex’s funding model, which is far more transparent than under-the-table corporate foundation funding.