Now if you pay the lest bit of attention to the Mainstream media, and the fact I call it that, should give you a clue where I'm headed, they have this issue called "global warming." And want to try to convince the general sheeple that the activities of man, bovine intestinal gas production, or the dangerous propellants of women's hair spray are the cause of the ice caps melting and destroying all the fancy homes on the beautiful beaches of the earth. The imminent death of all ocean life, and a return to the tropical caveman lifestyle in Maine and Washington that will resurrect the dinosaurs. And the only thing that can stop it, is giving money to the Democrats who can legislate it out of existence, and headed by Al Gore ( the inventor of the internet) the complete salvation of the earth will be possible if we can only offset pollution by selling carbon credits to the evil republican manufacturers and laundering it through the democratic machine to make sure only clean green bills are used to pay for the evil polluters of the military industrial machine of the new world order.

Or something of that effect. Now to reality. The Earth is a balanced system. The water cycle, climate adjustments and gas balances are all self regulating. The living things, and the non living things, are in balance as well. In the same way that so few can conceive of the vastness of the universe, originating in a singular cyclic event (BIG BANG) that has happened before, and will happen again. Same problem here.

The climate adjustments of the earth are a cyclic occurrence that will correct the small variations we may actually be part of causing. In my opinion the most significant actual damages we (mankind) are the cause of, are deforestation and water pollution. Of particular concern should be the wanton destruction of the South American rain forests, which was a concern, until it was discovered that no money could be made off it's cessation. Now that may sound a wee bit cynical, but trust me, money is the only motivating factor for anyone above a 6 figure income. I'm sure a few started out with the hope of making things better for everyone around them, but "making money" is it's own reward. Some might vie for power, but money IS power. And politics, now that it is so openly displayed, (internet {thanks Al G.} instant news coverage C-span) it gets pretty sickening to see the empty seats, votes being bought and sold, and glossed over, and the obvious failure of anyone to stand up and be a viable leader. And worse yet is the obvious power plays so often misguiding their actions. Well back to Global Warming, which has recently been rebranded as climate change, due to the fact that warming and cooling happen when ever the earths systems need to adjust.

Remember back in the 70's, when the activities of mankind were the cause of a mini ice age? Cities were studying how to "burrow in" I think Toronto was an example given, of a modern city underground, able to continue even in the heaviest snows . And plans were being developed to retrofit every Major City above Georgia with an underground presence, to allow life in an ice age. Tunneling machines were being developed and utilities were being mapped and confirmed for the process. Then, it warmed up. Totally screwed up all the money flow that had been planned.

The next crisis was the Oil Shortage of the 80's, (I really don't remember for sure, when the great toilet paper shortage was, before or after, but I digress.) We were going to run out of oil, long lines, people being killed over gasoline. Cars were designed with locking gas doors, and caps. Homes were converted to wood burners, and fuel oil was nearly unavailable, but natural gas was king, lines were installed systems converted. Then bang, all the fuel you could buy, of course the price was double, triple even. But the shortage was over, and the rich got richer.

So now, wait, what happened in the 90's? OH yeah, the Millennium Bug, all the geniuses in the world while designing computers and using numbering systems their whole lives, forgot the date would change from 19 to 20. And everything in the world would be destroyed, the melt down of atomic reactors, and power grids and security systems would fail. Yes everything, now so dependant on computers, would collapse and we would all perish in a dark night of catastrophic destruction. They made a few shekels of that one too.

I'm unaware of what the big plan was for the first decade of the 2000's the muslims and their flying bombs sort of blew that one out of the water so to speak, or maybe that was the plan. The resulting creation of the department of "homeland security" {or gestapo in another time and place} has been pretty profitable for a few. You don't see it, but they have skimmed billions to create and outfit a private government army, with a direct mandate to circumvent any "rights" they need to "for the nations security". Now I thought the NSA, FBI, and CIA, were sort of supposed to do that, backed by local law enforcement, who would be accountable to the people they were sworn to protect and serve. But obviously we needed a government in house army for..... what exactly?

Now back to Global Warming, again. The point of all these crisis is money, not a betterment of the "human condition" the earth's health, or any other touted reason, it's about getting money out of the hands and mattresses of the little people, and putting it in the hands of the few who know how money can be used to create more money, and by that I mean wealth with which comes the power to influence real issues and well it's a merry go round with the little guy paying for the ticket and getting taken for a ride, to nowhere.

You have every right to disagree with me, in fact I hope you do, and give it enough thought to come up with a counter proposal to my hypothesis, you might even cite some scientific facts which are always good in such a discussion. But realize, you can find "facts" to support either side of any argument, depends on how you state the study how you interpret the results and who funded the research. MONEY Or, maybe you take issue with my hypothesis on the grounds that certain groups (pick any political or faith based or ethnic or , well just anything.. ) wouldn't represent things in such a manner or interpret things in a less than fully honorable way just because of money. I think I can counter that with even the most mundane of logical presentations. What I do hope, is you will think about and consider what it is the MSM is telling you. You will consider who stands to profit by your acceptance of it and what happens if you just ignore the talking heads and keep your money and political support to yourself. IN fact, why don't you just vote out whoever is currently in. End all political lifetime employment opportunities, and vote only for people who have no lifelong connections or family fortunes to advance. All career politicians are owned by someone, and thus will always favor a cause that benefits that entity over the welfare of the actual people they are "elected" to represent. By their very nature they are liars and puppets. Vote for the crusading little guy, you will know who he represents, he represents his cause. He isn't owned by anybody else, he will be, if he ever gets reelected, but his first, one time run, at a problem will at least be honest. Vote them all out, end career politicians or face the consequences. The "founders" were regular people, giving their lives and fortunes for what they believed in to the detriment of each and every one of them, they didn't get rich, they didn't amass mounds of power, and they didn't intend the mess we live with today. THe politicians are self serving not servants of the people and only fools will allow this to continue. there I called a name I presented a challenge and I dare you to vote them all out. And when you do, make sure you don't replace them with a clone, know who you vote in and who owns them. or the process only repeats, wash rinse repeat. Good for shampoo, bad for congress.

In fact I found this recently, presented as science, I believe in real science, pure science, but you have to realize that if the government is involved, it ain't real, and it is anything but pure! ENJOY I'll rejoin you at the end.

The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research.

Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

The researchers says this slow-moving current could continue to divert heat into the deep seas for another decade.

However, they caution that global temperatures are likely to increase rapidly when the cycle flips to a warmer phase.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

The Pacific is a symptom of the hiatus but not the ultimate cause. The Atlantic is the driver”

Prof Ka-Kit Tung
University of Washington
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012.

This compares with a decadal average of 0.12 between 1951 and 2012.

More than a dozen theories have been put forward on the cause of this pause in temperature growth that occurred while emissions of carbon dioxide were at record highs.

These ideas include the impact of pollution such as soot particles that have reflected back some of the Sun's heat into space.

Increased volcanic activity since 2000 has also been blamed, as have variations in solar activity.

The most recent perspectives have looked to the oceans as the locations of the missing heat.

Last year a study suggested that a periodic upwelling of cooler waters in the Pacific was limiting the rise.

However this latest work, published in the journal Science, shifts the focus from the Pacific to the Atlantic and Southern oceans.

The team, lead by Prof Ka-Kit Tung from the University of Washington, US, says there is now evidence that a 30-year current alternately warms and cools the world by sinking large amounts of heat beneath these deep waters.

They've used observations from a network of devices called Argo floats that sample the oceans down to 2,000 metres.

Ice age fears
The researchers say that there was another hiatus between 1945 and 1975 due to this current taking down the heat, that led to fears of a new ice age.

From 1976 though, the cycle flipped and contributed to the warming of the world, as more heat stayed on the surface.

But since the year 2000, the heat has been going deeper, and the world's overall temperatures haven't risen beyond the record set in 1998.

"The floats have been very revealing to us," said Prof Tung.

"I think the consensus at this point is that below 700 metres in the Atlantic and Southern oceans [they are] storing heat and not the Pacific."

A key element in this new understanding is the saltiness of the water. The waters in the Atlantic current coming up from the tropics are saltier because of evaporation. This sinks more quickly and takes the heat down with it.

Atmospheric humidity over the Pacific during the El Nino in 1997
Eventually though, the salty water melts enough ice in Arctic waters to lower the saline level, slowing down the current and keeping the heat near the surface.

"Before 2006 the saltiness was increasing, this indicated that the current was speeding up," said Prof Tung.

"After 2006, this saltiness is diminishing but it's still above the long-term average. Now it is slowly slowing down.

"Once it gets below the long-term average, then it is the next period of rapid warming."

As well as the data from the Argo floats, Prof Tung has also examined the Central England Temperature record, that dates back over 350 years. He believes that this confirms the regular 70-year cycles of warm and cold spells.

This historic pattern, he says, could extend the current period of pause.

"We probably may have another 10 years, maybe shorter as global warming itself is melting more ice and ice could flood the North Atlantic, but historically we are in the middle of the cycle."

Rising staircase of warming
Several other researchers in this field acknowledge the Tung analysis is part of a growing body of evidence that suggests the Atlantic has a role in the pause.

Prof Reto Knutti from the ETH Zurich has recently published a review of all the current theories on the hiatus.

"I see the studies as complementary, and they both highlight that natural variability in ocean and atmosphere is important in modifying long term anthropogenic trends," he said.

"A better understanding of those modes of variability is critical to understand past changes (including differences between models and observations during the hiatus period) as well as predicting the future, in particular in the near term and regionally, where variability dominates the forced changes from greenhouses gases."

Other scientists say that the Atlantic hypothesis is interesting but a much longer range of observations is needed.

"We really don't have a lot of data," said Dr Jonathan Robson from the University of Reading, UK.

"So if there is this 60-year oscillation in the ocean, we haven't observed it all, basically we've observed the impact of it. We may have to wait 15-20 years to know what's going on."

Prof Tung believes that whatever the cause and the length of the pause, we are on a "rising staircase" when it comes to global temperatures that will become apparent when the Atlantic current switches again.

"At the end we will be on the rising part of the staircase, and the rate of warming there will be very fast, just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th Century, plus we are starting off at a higher plateau. The temperatures and the effects will be more severe."

So basically the ocean, of course three of them are identified as being THE cause, regulates the temperature of the earth. Contributing salinity changes and wind patterns affect the ice caps and there are 30 and 60 year cycles we haven't experienced "enough of" yet to make a positive determination. But AL GORE gets the NOBEL Prize, in preference over a woman who saved hundreds of babies lives in WWII, because he lent his name to a book about An Inconvenient Truth, that this scientist says we know too little about to have it called a "viable theory" let alone a TRUTH.

So as someone said, and it was probably written first in hyroglyphics, FOLLOW THE MONEY, and all will become clear.

Thus ends the political portion of our presentation. Have a great day, and good luck America. I think you're special, I think you're different, AND I THINK YOU'RE BETTER than all the other countries in the world . And screw anybody who disagrees, ketchup man!

The Chores, Fresh Air, Green Acres is for ME.