Al Gore is an idiot

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend toreflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 Like Rare Politics on Facebook

COMMON LAW IS STILL HERE

COMMON LAW STILL HERE

This is from Angela's talk show in April, with Al Barcroft. I'm posting it because he shows what the difference is between private and public law and how to use claim of CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, to get rid of the SSN. But he's wrong that common law was eliminated. It was only SUPPRESSED. If it was eliminated, that'd mean that public law was eliminated and we only have private law. And that's not true, it's just that corporate US citizens are subject to private law, and if you want to access public law, you've got to have a valid reason to rebut the presumption that you're a US citizen subject or a user of their gov't benefits, including the FRNs. Here's the first part and the Wikipedia US Code page that shows what is positive law and what is private law.

Private vs Public law, and beginning of Social Security (18min.):

AlBarcroft1b.mp3

 Constructive Fraud and SSN (18min.):

 AlBarcroft1c.mp3

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

Or as Karl Lentz does, use a DIFFERENT VENUE to access the court system. But about that later. So Al has a NARROW understanding of the law, as he showed when Karl Lentz called, and Al refused to talk to him and called him a jerk.

The second thing to note from this is how decades ago Al went to pay the IRS with a $100 Grand cashiers check, and they refused it and kicked him out, because it was AFTER he got rid of his SSN. That shows you that the SSN is what makes you a taxpayer, so obviously then, without it, you don't owe any income tax, as Al says.

In other words, the SSN is a MEMBERSHIP # for corporate Democracy. If you got it, you're eligible for various gov't benefits, including welfare, unemployment and licenses, but also liable to pay taxes, since someone has to pay for those benefits. And of course FRNs are another benefit of the corporate State which has to be paid for, which is why they make it so hard for people to opt out of Social Security, because they hold you tax liable for the ND, and having an SSN is the best way to make you pay your share for using FRN debt notes.

Remember, what came first, was replacement of honest gold money with FRN debt notes in 1933, so OBVIOUSLY the Social Security that came in 1935 was a way to get everyone ENUMERATED with a TAX NUMBER so they could tax your use of FRNs, which they call INCOME. So issuing Social Security numbers to everyone, which now is done by DEFAULT at birth, is a way of collecting interest on the money Congress borrows from Federal Reserve, which is the NATIONAL DEBT (ND).

And of course the bigger the ND is, the more money they have to collect in taxes to service it, and pay the interest on it, and they do it by passing MORE LAWS in order to generate more revenue. Like I said before, the larger the national debt, the FEWER freedoms we have.

So FRNs issued into circulation is the CAUSE of tax liability, and the SSNs are the MEANS of collecting tax revenue in order to pay for the national debt (FRNs).

In other words, your USE of FRNs to make purchases, CREATES tax liability, while the SSN officially makes you a taxpayer and provides the gov't with an easy mechanism for collecting that tax. Which is why a DEMAND for lawful money is a MAJOR step out of the corporate Matrix, since voluntary use of FRNs is the CAUSE of corporate Democracy.

And while Al compares Costco membership with the SSN as being a membership card in the federal Democracy, demanding lawful money then would be like having Costco membership, but NOT BUYING anything. And if you don't buy anything at Costco, their rules DON'T APPLY to you, since you didn't get anything from them.

IRS refusal of payment (5min.):

AlBarcroft2.mp3

Your birth certificate

Your birth bond:

About the Birth Certificate

Here's a bit more about the Birth Certificate. The way I overstand it, is that when your parents sign up for it, you get a Birth Certificate, which gives you certain RIGHTS to gov't benefits. And that's in return for you depositing your SOVEREIGNTY with the federal gov't. You see, American people are sovereign, and as such they're not liable for the national debt or income taxes, and the gov't needs someone to back up their fiat 'money' scheme and spending, without them being responsible for it.

So the Birth Certificate is kinda like a Certificate of Deposit, that you get when you sign up for a CD for a certain period of time, and in return the bank agrees to give you BENEFITS, which usually is a certain rate of interest that they pay you.

So the original BC application is a CONTRACT, which gives the benefit provider a RIGHT to proceeds from the State taxing and licensing you. So there basically is YOU the depositor, and the OWNER of the original BC contract.

It is a lot like issuing stocks, where the company sells stock, which gives the buyer EQUITY in the company, which entitles him to dividents, or in case of bonds, to guaranteed interest after maturity. And what holder in due course of the original BC/contract gets, is EQUITY in all your property, as well as a right to tax your income. Which is why the United States uses these BC contracts as COLLATERAL behind its US Treasuries and other securities, including Federal Reserve Notes. I.e. the State becomes the EQUITABLE owner of all your property, and so it gets to DICTATE how that property can be used, and what kind of fees you gotta pay for using that property. So as a corporate US citizen, you only get a LEGAL title to your property, which is a privilege subject to regulation.

In other words, without Birth Certificates, there'd be no corporate Democracy because the gov't COULDN'T print fiat money FRNs, because the Federal Reserve wouldn't issue FRNs, as US would have no collateral to back its borrowing, because all the American people would stay in the PRIVATE, where they're NOT liable for the US national debt and income tax.

So I hope you see that having a BC makes you a surety for the national debt, and your property a COLLATERAL for that debt. Makes you a subject of the federal gov't, including the IRS. And as the depositor, you have rights not only to gov't benefits, but also to FULL DISCLOSURE, as well as disclosure of who is the registered owner of your BC deposit, the holder in due course, and disclosure of the authority that gov't agencies claim when they demand you to pay or perform according to their demands. I.e., what is the instrument or agreement by which I consented to obey your rules?

And here's what Jean Keating says about it:

"When your parents signed the birth certificate, they created a legal fiction called a straw man. . In commercial law its called a (homus straus?), which is a legal fiction or straw man. First the State registered it with the bureau of vital statistics, and then they register it with the dept. of commerce. Then they register it with the DTC (Depository Trust Company).

This company right here (DTC) is a securities depository and settlement company. The DTC it’s nominee (nominee means name) is called CEDE and company. That’s the nominee. As in when they ceded the State of Maryland to the District of Colombia.

All your money goes through this company (DTC). This is the clearing corporation, clearing house and settlement depository for all commodities and securities. All commodities and securities are registered with CEDE and Co. under rule 12. Everybody is reading the UCC.  You should be reading SEC. Alpine publishing in NYC they have the national securities and exchange act of 1934.  There are two of them one in 1933, and one in 1934. Two different acts.  You should be studying these rules. Because what they're doing under rule 12, is they are registering your birth certificate. – Under rule 12 as a security.  They register this in the name of CEDE and Co. There are two types of securities. Certificated and un-certificated.  What they do is issue a certificate. Isn’t that what it says on your birth (certificate of live birth)? When they register it they issue a certificate, it becomes a certificated security. And it’s registered in the name of CEDE and Co.   What does that make them?  It makes them the registered holder. This has nothing to do with debtor/creditor law.

You own everything and you don’t control anything.  They control everything why? Because they are the registered owner. – of the certificated security (birth certificate) and they use this as collateral. You have to know what is going on before you go in there a start filing these UCC’s.

So, these people are the registered owners. Your are the owner in fact.  The registered owners control everything. They don’t own anything but they control everything. The people that are running this county control everything because they are the registered holder - owner of all these instruments - commercial paper.  You don’t control anything. I found all this out when I started studying the Erie vs Tompkins case decided in 1938 by Louis Brandis. This is what happened in 1938 that changed our country. The most important decision handed down by the US Supreme Court.  It’s not the real US Supreme Court – it is the High Court of Admiralty. Its called the high court of Justice, and you look up the word high court of Justice, you will find out its the high court of Admiralty. The real Supreme Court is the United States District Court for the District of Colombia in Washington, DC. They moved all the justices out of that court up on to the Capitol Hill in 1948.  If you go into the United States District Court for the District of Colombia, you will not find a yellow-fringed US flag in any of the courtrooms.  We went down there and looked.  Howard Griswald and I did.

That is your real article 3-section one court set up under the constitution. It was called the circuit court of the United States of the District of Colombia before it was called the Supreme Court in the United States for the District of Colombia.  They did that in march 3 1863.  They changed the name to the Supreme Court of the United States of the District of Colombia.  That is your real article 3 Supreme Court. That court setting up on Capitol Hill is your high court of justice, or your admiralty maritime court.   Nobody uses it – everybody goes into the territorial courts under article 1.

So they control everything because they are the registered holder – registered owner of the certificated security. Your birth certificate is a security.   On the screen is UCC Under definitions, it says a financial asset, except as otherwise provided under section 8-103, means a security.  What is a security? A security is an obligation of a person or a share, participation or other interest in a person or a property or an enterprise of a person which is, or is of a type dealt in or traded on a financial market.

Aren’t certificates traded in the market?  And this company (DTC) – CEDE and Co.- that’s its nominee, which means name, all your securities and commodities are registered in this company right here. They are the registered holder and registered owner of your birth certificate.

You are underwriting the public and national debt.  Because everybody on the public is, bankrupt.  They put HJR 192 in title 31 section 5118 2D.  “No contract shall contain an obligation which purports to give the obligee the right to demand payment in any kind of specific coin or currency of the United States.  They outlawed money. They did this under the War Powers Act.

How can there be a debt when there is no money.

June 4, 1933 they codified HJR 190 in title 31, sec 5118. (Banking Code)   under the War Powers Act.  There was no legal authority for doing this. Franklin Roosevelt sold more gold contracts than there was gold. They were going to run on the Treasury so he had to put a stop to it. And he declared a national emergency thru the Emergency Bank Act of arch 9, 1933. It’s in the Congressional Record- I am not making this up.  In 1970, they took 3 billion dollars out of Social Security to cover the British Treasury Department – they were going broke because all these corporations under GAT was converting all their dollars to euros, and they made a run on the British Treasury, and they didn’t have any currency, so they stole 3 billion dollars out of Social Security. They did this in 1970 under the Marshal Plan. One congressman was investigating it and they murdered him. This officially outlawed money (CFR31-5118).  When you sign a promissory note, it says you will pay back in US dollars. That’s why they indorse it on the back – to make it legal – it then is no longer a promissory note, it is an order to pay.  When you sign a mortgage, it is a financial agreement conveying your property to them – it is fraud, void. Then they sell it on the open market.

They track these with a CUSIP (committee on uniform security identification process) number. (9-digit number – the first 6 digits identifies what security it is. This is how they track you – that and trough your AUTOTRIS).

CUSIP is located on Water Street in DC in the DTC building.  They have another called ISIP (international securities identification process) in the ISID International Securities Identification directory."

************************************

So you're still the rightful OWNER of your sovereignty that you 'deposited' with the State, but CAN'T USE IT, just like you can't use the money that you deposited with a bank in return for Certificates of Deposit. And in order to get back your sovereign status, you'd have to basically return to them the Birth Certificate, maybe with an affidavit stating that it's the only BC that you have, and tell them that you cancel their trusteeship which was created by the original application for the BC.

And of course when you return the only copy of the BC that you have, you no longer can access gov't benefits. And if you are no longer eligible for gov't benefits, then the trust no longer exists, because without gov't benefits, the State did NOT give any value, so it has no rights/authority over you.

That's UCC for you; unless one gives VALUE, security interest does NOT attach. And without security interest, the State has NO RIGHTS/authority against you, because it has no equitable title to your property, as you're in the PRIVATE.