I’ve been telling you this for years, and it came up again on Friday’s show during open lines. The oceans aren’t warming, and aren’t rising. Data for years has shown this. Eventually, the climate alarmists were going to have to stop pretending they were. Naturally, this would only force them to justify they’ve been wrong all of these years because the situation was somehow worse than they thought. Regardless, it illustrates they are making it up as they go.
Yep. You read that right. The ‘oceans are rising crowd’ has explained the lack of oceans … you know … actually rising by saying there’s so much water that the oceans can’t rise. The ocean floor is collapsing!
So much extra water is being added into the world’s oceans from melting glaciers that the ocean floor is sinking underneath its increasing weight. This ocean floor deformation also means we have miscalculated just how much ocean levels are rising and the problem could be far worse than previously believed.
Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago. While this small fragment of an inch may not seem much, oceans cover 70 percent of our planet, making the problem bigger than it seems at an initial glance.
A listener had called on Friday during open lines to ask me about something he’d just heard elsewhere. Apparently, someone had said climate realists (deniers) only had the satellite data that shows no warming is happening to defend their position. You know, the raw factual data. I explained the numerous times we’ve literally caught climate alarmists, who’s careers and financial well-being depend on peddling man-made warming, colluding to manufacture warming data. How they’ve gone back centuries to erase old temperature data on the records to ‘adjust’ it to be colder so it appears we’ve warmed more than we actually have. I then went into the oceans. How they used to measure ocean temperature date, and how we do it now. The new methods show no warming. Next was the ‘rise’ in oceans. Something that hasn’t materialized.
These people saying the hard empirical data is irrelevant are the same people who make predictions purely on computer models. Models they have to molest the empirical data with to get the result they want. They are literally telling people to believe their guess more than the facts.
I pointed to a recent article in which whistleblowers exposed the fabrication of rising ocean levels to further illustrate my point.
In a new paper published in Earth Systems and Environment this month, Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier uncover evidence that Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) overseers appear to have been engaging in the “highly questionable” and “suspicious” practice of adjusting historical tide gauge data to show recent accelerated sea level rise where no such acceleration (or rise) exists.
So … we have people still fabricating data to pretend the oceans are rising while simultaneously having the same fear-mongers saying the oceans are sinking. Can you trust people who’ve been telling you the oceans are rising for years without any data to back them up? The same people who now admit they’ve been wrong and the oceans are sinking. If the oceans were so heavy that the ocean floor was collapsing and leading to sinking oceans … why did they lie to you to say the oceans were rising?
They were either wrong, or lying. Those are the only two options, and both should prove to you their dire predictions aren’t worth much.
Al Gore is pretending the deep freeze we are having now is because of global warming, and he’s lying when he tells you he predicted it. He said the North Pole would have no ice by now, but I digress. Global warming causes global cooling, and now rising oceans cause sinking oceans. This isn’t science, it’s cultism.
Climate alarmism … brought to you by the same people who can’t accurately predict the weather within the next 48 hours. You can totally trust them to predict the weather decades from now though.
All of this makes me think of my all-time favorite clip I play for my audience. Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) in 2010.
He’s still in office.
One more thing … in 2014 I did an MNC-TV video on how they’d discovered massive amounts of water under the Earth’s crust. At the time, geologists believed the water under the Earth’s crust was keeping the surface water levels of the oceans in balance. Seems relevant now.
NINE YEARS AGO THIS MONTH— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”
This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007.
A new survey of journalists, reporters and broadcasters shows that media types drink more alcohol, and may have difficulty controlling their emotions and suppressing biases.
For her “Study into The Mental Resilience of Journalists,” neuroscientist and executive leadership coach Dr. Tara Swart surveyed journalists and found that, despite constant deadlines, unpredictable work schedules, and alcoholism, journalists are fairly resilient to stresses due to their high sense of purpose.
Now, the sample size is ridiculously small (21). So, the study is crap. However, the study started with 90 journalists. Most did not finish. Some “self-excluded due to anti-depressant use.” The fact that so many didn’t finish is very interesting to me.
Bang the link to read what else the study says about journalists.
We all know how modern, dependent upon further funding in perpetuity so we have jobs, ‘#science‘ goes. One week a #study will be released showing one result, and the next week another study showing the opposite result gets published. It’s been that way for years. Coffee is healthy, coffee is unhealthy. Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy. It’s become so predictable that I routinely mock ‘studies’ like this on the program.
#Cell phones are one of those study subjects that I mock on a regular basis. For years, ‘scientists’ have been saying that cell phones cause various forms of cancers, infertility, and even psychological disorders. The following week, a counter-study will release the exact opposite results. That’s what happened this week again with cell phones, and the risk of you getting #cancer.
A study of 30 years’ worth of data has concluded that no link exists between mobile phones and brain cancers.
The study, out of Australia, pores over the prevalence of brain tumors since 1987, reports the Daily Mail.
During this 29-year period — a time when mobile phone usage has increased dramatically — there was no corresponding increase in cancerous brain tumors.
Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think?
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think? http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
It’s the news everyone has been dreading: That little cell phone that people use all the time could cause cancer.
However, before you throw your phone across the room, the authors of the study have not said how the study’s findings on #rats can compare to effects on humans.
The National Toxicology Program study exposed rats to radiation emitted from our cell phones for two and a half years.
The rats exposed to the radiation developed more tumors in the brain and heart that could be linked to cancer than the control group, which was not exposed.
This study was released this week. About 20 days after the first study. The headlines on this study all state that the government says cell phones may or will cause cancer. They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. US government studies are often the most biased, least scientific studies that get published. They are frequently used as vehicles for new legislation. That legislation almost always is designed to elicit new tax revenue of some sort.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
So which of these studies should you believe is more accurate?
One uses 29 years worth of data, and finds no increase in cancer tumors though cell phone use has obviously spiked in human beings. The other exposed rats to cell phones, only the males developed cancer, and the researchers themselves admit they can’t draw a conclusion to these results with human beings. So who do you believe has the better conclusion?
No let’s look at the way the propaganda machine works in the American media industrial complex … better known as the MSM (main stream media).
Remember, these two studies were released in the same month, only weeks apart. So let’s do a Google search for ‘cell phones cancer’ and filter the results to only include the last month.
Page 1 of Google results. Notice anything?
On the first page of Google, only one link seems to challenge the narrative that a government study had shown a link between cell phones and cancer … a Twitter user.
In a sea of journalists, news outlets and agencies, an individual on Twitter is the only person pointing out the great flaw of this ‘study.’
Aaron is a fairly known health researcher who likely only made the front page of Google because he has over 22k Twitter followers. He’s the one beacon of hope on page 1.
Page 2 of the results gives us three links highlighting the far larger, more legitimate study saying there’s no link between cell phones and cancer. Of those three, none are major media outlets, and one attempts to discredit the study in its title when it says “experts not sure.”
Furthermore, we learn that the study linking cell phones to cancer … in rats … well, only male rats … cost taxpayers $25 million! For $25 million we got a study where the researchers put cell phones next to rats, and the researchers literally said they cannot say how their findings would compare to effects on humans. Why are we funding this exactly?
At this point, I’d like to pause to remind you the National Toxicology Program is a program within the Health and Human Services department. As is the National Institutes of Health. The same people who spend tens of millions of dollars in largely silly research endeavors like if birds slur when they chirp after drinking alcohol. The same people who want $2 billion in new funds to fight the zika virus.
But wait … there’s more!
No research is worth anything unless it’s peer reviewed, and its results upheld.
Peer reviewer Dr. Michael S. Lauer doubted the findings, saying he was skeptical of the study’s claims.
“I suspect that this experiment is substantially underpowered and that the few positive results found reflect false positive findings,” he wrote.
Lauer had a particular issue with the fact that male rats in the control group, and therefore not exposed to the cell phone radiation, had a low survival rate. Only 28 percent survived the length of the study, and the average survival rate of rats in National Toxicology Program studies is 47 percent.
Researchers said they did not know how to explain that low rate.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article80271547.html##storylink=cpy
Um … what?
Not only are the ‘study’s’ peer reviewers calling the results into question, there seems to be an unexplained issue with the survival rates of the rats involved in the research.
So, essentially, we paid $25 million (so far) to study a potential link to cell phones and cancer, we found no link, there’s massive problems with the study’s methodology and subjects, the researchers admit they can’t draw comparisons with their results and humans, but the media is peddling a false-narrative that a link has been found. Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’ Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]
FYI, page 3 of the Google results yielded recognizable names in media reporting on the results of the 29 year study showing no link between cell phones and cancer, but none of these sources (while popular, and recognized) are what we’d call major media outlets. It wasn’t until page 6 of the results that a major media outlet’s reporting of the 29 study was presented. Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Even though the study showing a link between cell phones and cancer is essentially garbage, 91% of people searching for information on the subject will assume a positive link had been made between the two simply because of the search results.
[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b[/Tweet]
Here’s a sweet video of the new X-47B drone being developed into a battlefield ready aircraft after successful testing of the X-47B during carrier operations.
The drone was so successful that the initial 50 test flights were reduced to 16. After the program was complete, the Navy expressed some concerns about cost, and insufficient stealth capabilities. Development of the X-47C is now in development for the UCLASS program.
In a new paper published in Earth Systems and Environment this month, Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier uncover evidence that Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) overseers appear to have been engaging in the “highly questionable” and “suspicious” practice of adjusting historical tide gauge data to show recent accelerated sea level rise where no such acceleration (or rise) exists.
In a new paper published in Earth Systems and Environment this month, Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier uncover evidence that Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) overseers appear to have been engaging in the “highly questionable” and “suspicious” practice of adjusting historical tide gauge data to show recent accelerated sea level rise where no such acceleration (or rise) exists.
