August 19, 2019

News Conference: Global Sea Level Rise Is Ending

Monday, August 5, 2013 Press Release 6-2013
9:00 am

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today that a news conference has been scheduled for August 21, 2013, during which the end of global sea level rise will be formally declared and a specific timetable for sea level decline will be released.

The news conference will be held in the general Miami, Florida area of the United States, which for many years has been a focal point for concern over rising sea levels and this alleged threat posed by manmade global warming.

Similar to the news conference of July 1, 2008, when the SSRC issued a declaration of the end of global warming, this next historic news event will be one of the final measures according to SSRC President John Casey that helps put to rest the theory of manmade climate change.

Mr. Casey clarifies by saying, “One of the myths of manmade climate change caused by human CO2 emissions has been the threat to the world’s largest cities caused by global sea level rise. Two years ago we issued a preliminary finding that within two or three years the data to make a final assessment on the future of global sea level rise would be available. That data is in. It is time to provide a formal statement on the end of global sea level rise, the latest phase of which began roughly two hundred years ago. Like most major climate events, the past sea level rise was caused by the Sun and had little or nothing to do with mankind’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Now that the Sun has entered a state of “solar hibernation” and is cutting back on the energy by which it warms the Earth, a new and potentially dangerous decades-long drop in global temperatures has begun. The atmosphere and the oceans are cooling rapidly. Along with this next climate change to one of extreme global cooling, the oceans will contract, and sea levels will begin to drop as they always do during extended cold climates.”

As to why this forecast should be accepted by the US government which still maintains that manmade global warming is real, Casey adds a basic fact,” When it comes to believing who is right about climate change, the answer is fairly straight forward. Who has the best record for climate predictions?

The US government under President Obama and the United Nations have an abysmal record with their predictions for climate change. They have said mankind’s CO2 is driving the climate in accordance with the greenhouse gas theory.
However, the past decades and billions of dollars spent to prove this age-old, disputed theory have shown conclusively
that the greenhouse gas theory and the dozens of climate models made from it simply don’t work. It has been an unmitigated failure of science and governmental leadership. It is becoming more and more embarrassing for leaders from local to state, to federal levels as they attempt to defend it. On the other hand, my Relational Cycle Theory of climate change and the use of solar activity forcing (SAF) models by scientists who study Sun-Earth climate interactions, routinely demonstrate over 90% reliability in climate prediction. These tools have allowed me and the team at the SSRC to establish a track record for major climate prediction success that is today, still unmatched by the UN, the US government’s science agencies, including NASA and NOAA and the EPA.

The core question then is do we want our people and our government to be led astray by theories that don’t work or do we want to base our government, our economy, and our lives on theories that do work? It is time to cast off the failed theories and politics of the past and get prepared for the new cold era. Our planned news conference on the coming reduction in global sea levels is part of the process of returning to a fact-based and not a politically correct version of the causes and effects of climate change.”

The news conference will be held August 21, 2013, 7-9 PM in the Volunteer Park Community Center in Plantation, Florida
located at 12050 W.Sunrise Blvd. The event is sponsored by the American Citizens League, and other organizations and citizens in the southeast Florida region.

Share

General Article of the Uniform Code of Climate Change Justice

………….Or something!

For those not aware, there exists the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is used by the United States Military for law and order. For those who are or have served in the Military, they probably are aware of the famed, General Article, i.e Article 134. It is often laughed about because it’s historic use has always been to cover all those things not covered in the rest of the uniform codes. If you must know, Article 134 states:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Like I said. It’s a collect-all, gotcha kind of law for, well……just in case. When you think you have out-foxed the military, BAM! They will slap Article 134 on you.

For those with an athlete’s mentality, perhaps the universal code of coaches will better give you understanding:

Rule #1 – The coach is always right.
Rule #2 – See Rule #1.

Is this what it’s come to as far as climate change goes?

Rich Lowry of the National Review now calls the weasels who refuse to let go of their blind worship of the evils of man-caused global warming, “Climate Deniers.” He defines these climate deniers as, “all those advocates of limits on carbon emissions who are so certain of the science that they have no interest in the latest evidence.”

That’s nothing new. I think we just didn’t have a name for them….or least names writers were willing to publish. But consider what one of these “settled science” promoters and “climate deniers” is saying about why there has been no global warming for over a decade.

Now, just four years later, he [James Hansen] is arguing that all the new coal-fired plants have saved the planet from more global warming, by “fertilizing” the biosphere and creating aerosols that are a global coolant.

How do you discuss anything with anyone so embroiled in their man-caused global warming creed, that regardless of what any facts say, there’s always, if not a general article (excuse), a convenient one that will always explain man’s evil while exempting themselves from any wrong.

Who knows? Perhaps Hansen is right and coal-fired power plants are doing that, but isn’t his claim providing even more support for the fact that we don’t know enough about global climate change to declare the “science is settled,” while moving forward with draconian regulations of carbon dioxide emissions, carbon taxes, etc.?

When we read about instances such as this one, we then should seriously be asking ourselves about whether there should be background checks done on scientists. After all, isn’t some of this stuff, if not criminal, it certainly comes very close.

Share

It Now Costs Us Money to Not Use Renewable Energy

wake-up-americaThere are two things to point out about this link to what is being despicably displayed as a “study”. It’s a farce and should anger the scientific community that some organization with such a political bias, driven by agendas that will pad one’s wallet, makes a complete mockery of the scientific process and scholarship. But, that is what has transpired in our society; an outcome-based swindle disguised as science with no other purpose than to effect public opinion. God, it’s really all about the money, isn’t it?

The second thing is to point out is that the basis for the farcical findings of this “study”, is akin to your mother telling you that if you don’t stop playing with yourself you’ll go blind.

Here’s the farce.

Share

Mild Maine Winter May Have Stalled Whitetail Deer Death Spiral

If the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) is always so quick to jump on the bandwagon of severe winters as an excuse why there are no deer left in most portions of Maine’s landscape, then it would only stand to reason to jump ship and onto the bandwagon heading in the other direction when there is a mild winter. If all things are relative and one severe winter destroys a deer herd, then is it rational to conclude that one mild winter restores one?

If there has been any reprieve in continued destruction of Maine’s whitetail deer population, it comes more from what the MDIFW didn’t have their fingers in than what they did. A mild winter throughout the state probably did more to halt the death spiral of deer than anything MDIFW did or could have done.

What MDIFW did do was kill 119 coyotes. Earlier, I published the summary of their efforts. In short, MDIFW appropriated $50,000 for coyote killing. They spent $15,156, concentrating on 9 Deer Wintering Areas(DWA) and killed 119 coyote/wolf hybrids. Of note: 79 coyotes were killed by paid agents of the MDIFW and 40 were taken by volunteers.

However, I will withhold judgement on any successes or failures in this effort as the mild winter did not provide the best opportunity to find coyotes in DWAs. And, we may never get to see if any long term, concentrated effort to kill coyotes will be effective if there is no money appropriated next year or the years after that.

For Maine’s license buyers, those 79 coyotes killed by paid agents, cost $191.85 per coyote. A mild winter cost nothing. One mild winter will not cause a restoration of a severely depleted deer herd, but it may be the only hope we have. Sane sportsmen understand that real science forecasting calls for earth to be heading into at least a ten-year cooling. For those wildlife managers betting on global warming to cure their deer management problems, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

Tom Remington

Share

Radio Interview With John L. Casey (IEVPC) and Dr. Rich Swier

Mr. John L. Casey is International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (www.IEVPC.org) Co-Founder and Chairman. Mr. Casey is also President of the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), a leading climate science research organization. Mr. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, NASA Headquarters and Congressional Consultant and space shuttle engineer.

John is a leading researcher on the science of solar activity cycles and their impacts on climate change and associated catastrophic geophysical events (CGE), including earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, and is the author of the widely acclaimed climate science book “Cold Sun.”

John has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics (JSU) and an MA degree in Management (Webster). He has also been past Chairman of GFSD, an international charity that provided aid to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can contact Mr. Casey directly at mail@spaceandscience.net

His peer reviewed scientific paper, “The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity” also called the “RC Theory,” is available at the ‘RC Theory” page on this site.

Share

Message From NASA Scientists to NASA: Hey, Quit Lying About Man-Made Global Warming

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA had a message for them recently:

“We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

Share

Our Seven-Day Forecast Calls For Global Warming

It appears that the freaks who have swilled the Kool-Aid and been baptized in Al Gore’s global warming cult are pushing to kick all those local weathermen off the air who don’t espouse to their religion and speak of it on a regular basis while reporting the weather. I suppose their seven-day forecasts would look something like this:

According to the Daily Caller, the true believers want all local weathermen to include man-caused global warming in their daily forecasting of the weather. It’s a far cry difference between forecasting weather and understanding what causes our climate to fluctuate.

But aside from those differences, it’s a moronic statement to define global warming “deniers” as: “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

As was well stated by the late Michael Crichton: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.”

Tom Remington

Share

My Study Suggests Republicans Cause Decreased Amounts of Snowfall

The title above suggests that perhaps the author has lost his mind, or to some they might think he is starting to get it back. Regardless, even I’ll admit that perhaps making the conclusion that republicans cause less snow is ridiculous.

In my “study”, I’m “suggesting” that my observations are that republicans in Maine took over the Blaine House and Congress. In the first full year of this political reshuffling, I also witnessed the fact that the Pine Tree State has seen very little snow. Therefore, I’m “suggesting” from my “study” that it must be republicans that cause decreased amounts of snowfall.

Utterly ridiculous isn’t it……..well, unless of course you are a global warming cultist. (It’s a given that GW cultists hate republicans too.)

Such should be the case in a recent “study” that “suggests” that increased levels of mercury in the Northeast caused a handful of songbirds to stop reproducing. According to JunkScience, the study is junk science.

All the researchers did in this first-of-its-kind study was to correlate mercury levels with claimed reproductive failure in a small number of wrens — without taking any other measurements or observations of any other substances and/or conditions. They set out to blame mercury and, lo and behold, they succeeded (sic).

So, the next time you are gazing at your bird feeder and see a wren or two, know that there would have been more wrens in your feeder if republicans hadn’t taken the political advantage in Maine.

Tom Remington

Share

Climate Alarmists Still Beating Their Drum. 2011 Coolest in Over Decade.

From JunkScience.com comes an AP report that states: ““Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998,” NASA climate scientist James Hansen admits in the GISS report. However, he adds that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and that 2011 was cooled by a moderately strong La Niña.”

Does anyone remember taking science classes in grade school? Does anyone remember one of the first things we were taught? I didn’t think so. We were taught that in scientific experiments there always needs to be constants. Otherwise, what is there left to compare change to?

As shameful and disgusting as it is, people around the globe have been forced into being skeptical of any data put out by any climate scientists. There is so much money and politics behind climate science, the corruption renders news reports, like the one linked to here, as completely laughable. Why should we believe any of their crap?

But, beside that, consider the poor science in and of itself. In this report, these scientists are attempting to convince people the world is warming at a rapid rate and of course, even without any proof, they blame it on carbon dioxide. They base their conclusion of a rapidly warming globe on temperatures that are “above the average”.

What they fail to tell us are two extremely important items that render their conclusions something even an 8th grade science teacher would give a student a poor grade for. Climate scientists base their average temperature on records kept for the past 132 years. To a 5-year-old, 132 years seems like a long time but in climatological ranks, 132 is barely a blink of the eye.

Therefore, my 8th grade science teacher would question my conclusions as to how I obtained an “average” temperature, especially if I was trying to convince the teacher it applied to the planet since day one. I might have gotten a passing grade if I had explained that having only records for 132 years, it would be unreliable to trust my average extended out over millenniums.

The second issue involves the equipment, locations and methods of temperature taking over the 132 years. If a scientist could not have used the exact same locations, under the exact same conditions, using the exact same equipment, collecting data using the exact same methods, can it honestly be totally reliable scientific conclusions? Shouldn’t there at least be asterisks attached to certain data to explain differences?

Climate science is too young with far too many unanswered questions to be making brash statements and providing unsubstantiated conclusions about our climate, what’s causing any change and what direction it is headed in.

Please, continue the research but give us a friggin break on the political sheep dip!

Tom Remington

Share