Oooops...
Space and Science Research Corporation P.O. Box 607841 * Orlando, FL 32860
(407) 985-3509 * www.spaceandscience.net
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
April 28, 2014
SUBJECT: Request to Prepare the USA for Dangerous Cold Climate.
Dear Mr. President,
Good morning.
This letter is sent to you as a heartfelt request that you take immediate action to insure that the United States of America is fully prepared for the historic, potentially dangerous, new cold climate that has begun.
This request is backed up by research over the past decades into the causes of climate change along with the real status of the Earth’s climate. Key findings of that research are provided here in a partial list of what is either widely accepted or can be easily validated:
1. The past period of global warming, a natural phenomenon produced primarily by the Sun, has ended. We have now had over seventeen years without any effective growth in global atmospheric temperatures in the troposphere. Ironically, this means that for the majority of the time the international community has been dealing with global warming, there wasn’t any! It is therefore important to accept that global warming has ended. There is no global warming!
2. The Earth is actually cooling and has been for years.The world’s oceans have been cooling for eleven years as has the atmosphere for most of that time. Of the twenty-four climate parameters monitored by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) and recorded in its quarterly Global Climate Status Report (GCSR), eighteen of them show global cooling as the dominant trend. The remaining six are expected to convert to ‘cooling’ status within the next five years. Sea levels have already started to drop where some ocean areas are getting colder. The SSRC has predicted a global sea level reduction lasting thirty years to begin at any time between this year and the 2020’s. If these trends change, the SSRC will be the first to report it. However, based on actual global temperatures and the most reliable climate models, there is only one conclusion to be made about the Earth’s current climate status – a new cold climate has arrived!
3. If this new cold epoch proceeds as past episodes (roughly 200 and 400 years ago), we should expect to see substantial global crop damage, social and political upheaval, and loss of life. These ill-effects are expected to start soon and last at least three decades. We have little time left to prepare. Respected Russian scientists have even gone so far as to say a new “Little Ice Age” will start this year! This means the advancing cold climate is a serious threat to our people!
4. The new cold climate is being brought to the Earth by a repeating 206 year cycle of the Sun. I independently discovered this cycle and announced it in 2007. Though many other researchers have discovered this cycle or predicted a coming cold climate, they have been ignored. The cold phase of this two-century-long cycle is produced by the Sun making dramatic reductions in the energy by which it warms the planet. This Sun-driven cold period is called a “solar hibernation,” by the SSRC. It is important to note that NASA, the US Air Force, and the National Solar Observatory have confirmed the on-going decline in solar activity. This has happened as I predicted. It is also necessary to know that this natural, repeating, and ominous change in the Sun is unstoppable!
5. Research related to these solar hibernations, also shows they occur concurrently with the most destructive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the latter of which can add dramatically to an already colder climate.
In addition, I believe African Americans, other minorities, and the poor will suffer the most because of the new cold era and your climate policies. This assertion is supported by the fact that a large percentage of these citizens are largely dependent on the US government for food, which we will start to run short of as the cold starts to damage crops. This means as a result of your climate policies, they may be both unprepared and unable to get food routinely during the worst years of the coming cold climate. Further, your climate policies include making energy costs “skyrocket” to quote you. These energy cost increases will hit minorities and the poor the most.
In summary, the lives of many Americans may be in jeopardy as a consequence of the arrival of the new cold climate, your continued support for the flawed, unreliable manmade global warming theory, and your lack of action to prepare the United States for the next climate change.
Regardless of your stated belief in “accelerating” global warming, (something that does not exist), as President of the United States, you still remain fully responsible and accountable for the welfare of our approximately 317 million citizens.
You therefore deserve to receive this genuine warning about the new cold climate if nothing else, for the record.
Sincerely,
John L. Casey
President
http://spaceandscience.net/id76.html
.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-28-2014, 08:16 PM
- Jewish Lawyer
- 04-28-2014, 08:25 PM
Fuckers will freeze to death before they give up on their global warming!!!
- Yssup Rider
- 04-28-2014, 08:42 PM
Jesus, JL, you're keeping high falootin' company these days.
- i'va biggen
- 04-29-2014, 05:48 AM
Guess you dumatards missed the part about the polar vortex melting the ice in Greenland. There is another side to a low pressure . Hint: pulls cold air down and heated air up.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-29-2014, 08:59 PM
Inhofe: ‘Possibility of electioneering is deeply troubling’
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
April 29, 2014 2:35 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed issuing a final regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions for new power plants until after the midterm elections.
The agency pushed back publishing the rule for two months, allowing vulnerable Senate Democrats to avoid a vote on the measure six weeks before voters go to the polls.
President Obama directed the EPA to issue a proposal requiring new power plants to reduce their carbon pollution by “no later than” Sep. 20, 2013. The EPA posted the proposal on its website that day, but did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until Nov. 25, 2013. The rule was then published in the Federal Register on Jan. 8.
Once a rule is published in the Federal Register, agencies are required to finalize it within one year. As a result, the EPA does not have to finish the regulation until Jan. 8, 2015, instead of this September, just weeks before the midterms.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) suggested the delay was motivated by politics.
“Based on this sequence of events, it appears that the delay in the proposal’s publication may have been motivated by a desire to lessen the impact of the president’s harmful environmental policies on this year’s mid-term elections,” he wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Monday.
“If EPA had kept the timetable mandated by the president, it would have been obligated to finalize the new rule about six weeks before the 2014 elections,” Inhofe said. “Now, because of EPA’s delay, the proposal will not need to be finalized until well after this election cycle.”
The EPA admitted that they did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until November, but blamed the delay on “routine” processes, and last fall’s government shutdown.
“EPA follows routine interagency and internal processes to ensure that formatting, consistency, and quality control issues are addressed before any rule package is published in the Federal Register,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said to the Washington Free Beacon. “This is a normal part of the rulemaking process, and the time needed for these procedures varies for each rule.”
Purchia said the agency “lost a significant amount of time,” due to the shutdown.
However, an Office of Management Budget (OMB) official questioned the EPA on why the rule was taking so long.
“Lots of folks are confused as to why the rule hasn’t yet published in the [Federal Register],” OMB Policy Analyst Nathan Frey wrote in November, before the regulation was submitted. “Are there particular reasons for this?”
Inhofe said the shutdown would not have prevented the EPA from releasing the rule.
“The EPA has now admitted that they held the rule until Nov. 25, a
full 66 days after they made it available to the public,” Inhofe told the Free Beacon. “This is unprecedented and definitely not ‘normal.’”
“EPA’s spokeswoman Liz Purchia attempted to blame the government shutdown and holidays, but that only excuses the EPA roughly a third of that time,” he said. “Furthermore, the EPA typically submits a major regulation to the Federal Register within five days of its announcement.”
“If the EPA had followed this same protocol, the [New Source Performance Standards] rule would have been submitted to the Federal Register’s office two full working days before the shutdown,” Inhofe added. “Adm. Gina McCarthy misinformed the Environment and Public Works Committee about when this rule was submitted, and I expect her to respond to my letter explaining why this happen and who is responsible.”
McCarthy had testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee in January that as soon as the proposal was released online in September 2013, “we had submitted it to the Federal Register office.”
“The delay was solely the backup in the Federal Register office,” McCarthy said.
However, Inhofe’s office contacted the Federal Register, which revealed that they did not receive the regulation until Nov. 25.
The regulation would require new gas-fired and coal-fired power plants to emit fewer than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.
Inhofe said in his letter that the costs associated with the regulation would be “enormous with far-reaching and irreparable impacts on our electricity generation capacity, affordability, and reliability.”
“With this in mind, it makes sense that the American public would react negatively to the finalization of the first round of [green house gas] regulations for power plants,” he said.
Republicans in the Senate could have forced a vote on a resolution of disapproval against the rule once it was finalized. The earliest Democrats would have to defend the rule is now next January.
“This possibility of electioneering is deeply troubling,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe is now asking the EPA to answer how they made the decision on when to submit the rule to the Federal Register, and if the White House played any role.
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
April 29, 2014 2:35 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed issuing a final regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions for new power plants until after the midterm elections.
The agency pushed back publishing the rule for two months, allowing vulnerable Senate Democrats to avoid a vote on the measure six weeks before voters go to the polls.
President Obama directed the EPA to issue a proposal requiring new power plants to reduce their carbon pollution by “no later than” Sep. 20, 2013. The EPA posted the proposal on its website that day, but did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until Nov. 25, 2013. The rule was then published in the Federal Register on Jan. 8.
Once a rule is published in the Federal Register, agencies are required to finalize it within one year. As a result, the EPA does not have to finish the regulation until Jan. 8, 2015, instead of this September, just weeks before the midterms.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) suggested the delay was motivated by politics.
“Based on this sequence of events, it appears that the delay in the proposal’s publication may have been motivated by a desire to lessen the impact of the president’s harmful environmental policies on this year’s mid-term elections,” he wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Monday.
“If EPA had kept the timetable mandated by the president, it would have been obligated to finalize the new rule about six weeks before the 2014 elections,” Inhofe said. “Now, because of EPA’s delay, the proposal will not need to be finalized until well after this election cycle.”
The EPA admitted that they did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until November, but blamed the delay on “routine” processes, and last fall’s government shutdown.
“EPA follows routine interagency and internal processes to ensure that formatting, consistency, and quality control issues are addressed before any rule package is published in the Federal Register,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said to the Washington Free Beacon. “This is a normal part of the rulemaking process, and the time needed for these procedures varies for each rule.”
Purchia said the agency “lost a significant amount of time,” due to the shutdown.
However, an Office of Management Budget (OMB) official questioned the EPA on why the rule was taking so long.
“Lots of folks are confused as to why the rule hasn’t yet published in the [Federal Register],” OMB Policy Analyst Nathan Frey wrote in November, before the regulation was submitted. “Are there particular reasons for this?”
Inhofe said the shutdown would not have prevented the EPA from releasing the rule.
“The EPA has now admitted that they held the rule until Nov. 25, a
full 66 days after they made it available to the public,” Inhofe told the Free Beacon. “This is unprecedented and definitely not ‘normal.’”
“EPA’s spokeswoman Liz Purchia attempted to blame the government shutdown and holidays, but that only excuses the EPA roughly a third of that time,” he said. “Furthermore, the EPA typically submits a major regulation to the Federal Register within five days of its announcement.”
“If the EPA had followed this same protocol, the [New Source Performance Standards] rule would have been submitted to the Federal Register’s office two full working days before the shutdown,” Inhofe added. “Adm. Gina McCarthy misinformed the Environment and Public Works Committee about when this rule was submitted, and I expect her to respond to my letter explaining why this happen and who is responsible.”
McCarthy had testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee in January that as soon as the proposal was released online in September 2013, “we had submitted it to the Federal Register office.”
“The delay was solely the backup in the Federal Register office,” McCarthy said.
However, Inhofe’s office contacted the Federal Register, which revealed that they did not receive the regulation until Nov. 25.
The regulation would require new gas-fired and coal-fired power plants to emit fewer than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.
Inhofe said in his letter that the costs associated with the regulation would be “enormous with far-reaching and irreparable impacts on our electricity generation capacity, affordability, and reliability.”
“With this in mind, it makes sense that the American public would react negatively to the finalization of the first round of [green house gas] regulations for power plants,” he said.
Republicans in the Senate could have forced a vote on a resolution of disapproval against the rule once it was finalized. The earliest Democrats would have to defend the rule is now next January.
“This possibility of electioneering is deeply troubling,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe is now asking the EPA to answer how they made the decision on when to submit the rule to the Federal Register, and if the White House played any role.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-29-2014, 09:04 PM
And, of course, we all know where this is leading to – more redistribution of wealth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SytKywlbKY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SytKywlbKY
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-29-2014, 09:23 PM
EPA Chief Promises To Go After Republicans Who Question Agency Science
Michael Bastasch 4:56 PM 04/28/2014
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has issued a warning to Republicans who continue to question the integrity of the agency’s scientific data: we’re coming for you.
McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.
“Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy said, according to Politico.
“It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it,” she added. “If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”
Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have led the charge on pressing the EPA to make publicly available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations. McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.
“EPA’s leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.
“We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.
The EPA has used non-public data to justify 85 percent of $2 trillion worth of Clean Air Act regulation benefits from 1990 to 2020. The agency also uses such datasets to assert that Clean Air Act regulation benefits exceed the costs by a 30:1 ratio originates from the secret data sets.
House Republicans have backed a bill that would block the EPA from crafting regulations based on “secret” data. Republicans argue that such data was used to craft onerous regulations, like one promulgated in late 2012 to reduce soot levels.
That soot rule is supposed to yield $4 billion to $9 billion in benefits per year, while costing from $50 million to $350 million, but the data backing that claim up is not publicly available.
“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions,” said Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert, who introduced the bill.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” said Smith, who cosponsored the bill. “The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/28/ep...#ixzz30Ku1wUwu
Michael Bastasch 4:56 PM 04/28/2014
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has issued a warning to Republicans who continue to question the integrity of the agency’s scientific data: we’re coming for you.
McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.
“Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy said, according to Politico.
“It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it,” she added. “If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”
Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have led the charge on pressing the EPA to make publicly available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations. McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.
“EPA’s leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.
“We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.
The EPA has used non-public data to justify 85 percent of $2 trillion worth of Clean Air Act regulation benefits from 1990 to 2020. The agency also uses such datasets to assert that Clean Air Act regulation benefits exceed the costs by a 30:1 ratio originates from the secret data sets.
House Republicans have backed a bill that would block the EPA from crafting regulations based on “secret” data. Republicans argue that such data was used to craft onerous regulations, like one promulgated in late 2012 to reduce soot levels.
That soot rule is supposed to yield $4 billion to $9 billion in benefits per year, while costing from $50 million to $350 million, but the data backing that claim up is not publicly available.
“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions,” said Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert, who introduced the bill.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” said Smith, who cosponsored the bill. “The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/28/ep...#ixzz30Ku1wUwu
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-29-2014, 09:47 PM
Climate Change should be the least of your worries gentleman.
Jim
Jim
- TheDaliLama
- 04-30-2014, 08:13 AM
- i'va biggen
- 04-30-2014, 10:38 AM
- TheDaliLama
- 04-30-2014, 10:56 AM
- TheDaliLama
- 04-30-2014, 10:58 AM
I love threads like this.....it really brings out the dumbest liberals on this board.
But we already knew that about i'va.
But we already knew that about i'va.
- i'va biggen
- 04-30-2014, 12:52 PM
- CJ7
- 04-30-2014, 02:08 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 05-01-2014, 09:26 AM
George Will: “Global Warming Is Socialism By The Back Door”
30 Apr 2014global warming, socialism by Real Clear Politics
George Will sits down with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein.
GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.
Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.
see video hereV
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2014/04/george-w...#ixzz30TgrbwA7
Read more at http://joemiller.us/2014/04/george-w...w61fxuWrxBT.99
30 Apr 2014global warming, socialism by Real Clear Politics
George Will sits down with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein.
GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.
Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.
see video hereV
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2014/04/george-w...#ixzz30TgrbwA7
Read more at http://joemiller.us/2014/04/george-w...w61fxuWrxBT.99