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

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER SCAM

Well, Well, Well, it looks like someone thoroughly checked this out! I was wondering who was going to do research into President Obama's Social Security number. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jean Paul Luwig or Barack Hussein Obama?   SSN#042-68-4425

< /div>

WOW, read this, it's short - very interesting. 

An  intensive 6-year investigation has revealed  the  identity of the man whose Social Security Number (SSN) is being used by President Obama.

Jean  Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890,  immigrated  to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (President Obama's current SSN) rec'd  on or about March 1977.

Mr. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecti cut .  Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few  reserved for  Connecticut residents. 

Barack  H. Obama never lived or worked in that state!  Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!

Now comes the best pa rt! J. P.  Ludwig spent the final months of his life  in  Hawaii, where he died.
Conveniently,  Obama 's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham,worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore  had  access to the SSNs of deceased individuals. 

The Social Security Administration was  never  informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were  no  benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.  The  suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing  her  grandson  was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya, or became a c itizen  of Indonesia  upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro,  simply scoured the probate records, until  she found someone, who died who was not receiving  Social  Security benefits, and selected Mr.  Ludwig’s Connecticut SSN for her grandson Barry Obama.

Just  wait until the head Birther  himself,  Donald  Trump, gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O 's  use< b>  of a stolen SSN. You will see  leftist  heads  exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many Americans  do  not understand the meaning of  the  term  "natural  born", there are few who do not understand that if  you  are using someone else 's SSN it is a  clear  indication of fraud, and a federal offense.  Let 's all get this information  out to  everybody on our mailing lists.  If the  voters  of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the  biggest  and best news in decades for our country and the world

If you can just say  "oh well; ho hum" after reading this  you  get what you deserve .

"In God We  Trust."

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