Socialist Filth tried to shout down & intimadate Reclaim Australia protesters !

Here is the speech that MP George Christensen prepared for the Mackay Reclaim Australia rally last weekend. Christensen (photo below)  has been maligned and attacked by journalists and human rights commissions for giving it, but tell me exactly what he says that is offensive - more offensive than the message of  those Leftist Scum who tried to scream him down?


''We all have a voice: Notwithstanding our choice to use it or not. Notwithstanding the best efforts of those who would render us silent. We have a voice – not a voice of hatred, violence, and extremism – but a voice of warning, defiance, and of hope. Our voice does not go unchallenged but that is the beauty and appeal of the free and open democratic society our voice speaks out to defend.
 
Long before he became President of the United States, Ronald Reagan was a voice for the American people. At a Republican convention in 1964, he said:

“There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed  way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second --- surrender''

Our voice says: “We will not surrender.” We will not sit idly by and watch the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle that we love and that is envied around the world be surrendered and handed over to those who hate us for who we are and what we stand for.

When Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he warned against the threat of Soviet Russia and those words apply equally now to the threat of Islamic extremism and its complicit defenders. Reagan said: “Every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement” and yet that is the political and social environment that confronts us today – appeasement.

When I accepted the invitation to be a voice here today, I was disappointed (but not entirely surprised) by a tidal wave of hyperventilation and confected outrage on social media, in the mainstream media, and from capital city commentators. Labor’s Shadow Minister for Immigration, Richard Marles said today’s rally was synonymous with racism. (Ed.- Another ignorant asshole!)
Our State Labor Member for Mackay described my comments in accepting your invitation to speak as appalling, shameful, ignorant, and hateful. In doing so, she has reflected on you and your fellow like-minded citizens. A petition urged the Prime minister to prevent me from even attending today. The apologists of the left, the do-gooders, and the politically correct crowd said I should not address you because you were a crowd of: racists, bigots, Islamophobes, extremists, white supremicists, skinheads, and Nazis.

But I look out at the crowd and that’s not what I see. I see Mums and Dads who love their country – the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle. I see everyday hard-working families who want their kids to enjoy the same freedoms that were enjoyed by the generations that came before them.

Some of the freedoms Australians hold most dear are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In this country, I am proud of the fact that someone who has a particular belief can hold that view without fear of intimidation. They can practice their faith – whether they are Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim – at a church, a temple, or a mosque – without fear of intimidation. And the full force of the law can, and should, come down on anyone who does try to intimidate them.

Likewise, we have a freedom to criticise. While it is not my cup of tea to criticise religions, I see that people criticise Christianity every day without fear of retribution, violence, or being called a Christophobe or a racist. In fact, we have seen many examples in the past year alone of Christians being slaughtered for no reason other than the fact that they are Christian. But in this country, that should not be tolerated.

In this country, we also enjoy the right to peaceful assembly. We all have the right to be here today, protesting in a peaceful way against the dangers of radical Islam and the culture of appeasement that allows radical extremism to fester. That culture of appeasement to radical Islam dictated that I should not speak here today for fear of giving you credibility – as if your voice would otherwise have no value.''

The Way I See It......the violence said so much about the true threat to our values. One side carried the Australian flag; the other had protesters who spat on it. One side denounced the Islamic State that has beheaded civilians, murdered gays and raped women; the other tried to attack those worried by the obvious danger. One side organised a peaceful rally; the other tried to shut it down.

The supporters of the Socialist Alliance, mostly dumb-ass Uni students who had been encouraged to attend by flyers and posters in Unis and on bus stops. The most prevalent chant was ''Welcome Muslims'' and ''Stop Racists''  Once again proving that our youth don’t know the meaning of basic English words like racist, comparing it to the religion of Islam.

In any rational view, one side represented by far the bigger threat to our freedoms and physical safety, not least to the safety of our police, yet much of the Left-leaning media has treated Reclaim Australia as the prime villains instead. Disgusting !

No Let Up in Iranian Ayatollah's Vilification and Hatred of U.S. !

Iran's Supreme Leader (photo right) has been behaving rather strangely since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in Vienna on July 14: two days after he signed the agreement, his Id el Fitr speech was business as usual – that is, filled with the same old hatred and hostility towards the West.


The question that arises of itself as a result of this speech is why Khamenei feels the need to speak

with such hostility against the United States when he knows that there is so much opposition to the agreement in America, and that it still has to be ratified by Congress. Why should the Supreme Leader scatter proclamations that could increase American opposition to the agreement? Why is he proving that all the objections to the agreement are well-founded? And why is he embarrassing the President Obama, who put himself on the line for this agreement?


The answer to this question is somewhat complicated, but clear to anyone who is aware of the internal situation in Iran, like Dr Mordechai Kedar, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Lian University, Israel.


Iran's population is young in comparison to the population of Europe. More than half of Iran's citizens are under 35, meaning that they were not yet born when the Shah was deposed at the end of 1978. They did not suffer from his despotism, and therefore do not understand why they have to suffer from the Ayatollahs' despotic rule. The majority of Iran's population is totally secular, their lives far removed from Islam, Sharia and tradition. The religious oppression under which they are forced to live distances them even more from religion. They have developed anti-religious feelings, and the more they are oppressed by religion, the farther they stray from its strictures.

Sexual promiscuity in Iran is widespread and stems in part from the fact that Iranians marry late. A 2008 survey showed that the average age at which men marry is almost 40, while the women's average is 35. The government hands out free contraceptives, preferring that alternative to dealing with sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and abandoned babies. Gays, both male and female, flourish in Iran's cities, while the web is filled with thousands of porno sites in Persian, most of them managed from Iran.


Iran's mosques are almost entirely deserted. As a result, the Supreme Leader gives his Friday speech in Tehran University, with the students forced to attend and cheer when they receive a signal to do so. In  June, 2009, after "election" results showed Ahmadinejad victorious for the second time, massive mostly-student-based demonstrations exploded in the larger cities. After 7 months and 4 weeks, the ''Green Movement'' was suppressed by violent measures: men were shot, women arrested and raped by jailers. Later it was discovered that the regime had prepared two aircraft for smuggling out the heads of state, just in case the demonstrations got out of control and succeeded in toppling the

Ayatollahs.


The agreement between the world powers and Iran, signed on July 14, 2015, has provided new hope to many of Iran's citizens, especially its restless young adults. The first reason for this hope is the belief that the billions of dollars that were denied the people will soon arrive in the country, improving the economic situation and bettering everyday life.


This optimism raises hopes that along with an improved economy, the human rights situation will also change for the better, allowing for more political freedom and less governmental oppression and corruption.


Khamenei knows full well which way the young adult population's wind is blowing and fears that the agreement will set off a chain reaction where that sector will want to translate the economic thaw into a loosening of political, religious, cultural and personal restraints. In order to deal with this trend, Khamenei feels that must either find or invent an evil and threatening external enemy that will get all the Iranians, mainly the youth, to forget all other pressing issues and flock to the Ayatollahs' leadership. America is still the enemy, still threatening Iran, and the only way to survive the machinations of its wicked Western government is if every Iranian supports the Ayatollahs' regime.

This is the true underlying reason for Khamenei's incitement. He needs an external threat from "The Big Satan" because he is afraid of the secular majority in his country who do not support the Ayatollahs, not even the so-called "Reformist Ayatollahs" among them -  a euphemism, at best, for those whose reforms are simply a way to mask their goal of perpetuating the Ayatollahs' reign without changing or replacing it.


It is worth noting that Iran is an artificial country made up of six ethnic groups who do not connect with one another: Persians (60%), Azarim, Kurds, Turkmans, Bluchis and Arabs. Most of the population is Shiite, but the Bluchis and Kurds are Sunni and both groups are waging an ongoing guerilla war against the central regime in order to gain independence, exacting a price in dead Iranian soldiers and Revolutionary Guards. The world does not know about this warfare because journalists are banned from reaching the war zones and photographing the terrible events that keep happening there.


In Conclusion:
Since the Iran Agreement does not provide a foolproof way to check that the Ayatollahs are definitely not developing nuclear arms, we can conclude that sooner or later Iran will develop nuclear weapons in secret, if it has not done so already.  Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs pose a danger to the entire world because of the apocalyptic views of Shiite Islam and because of the Islamist ambition for global hegemony. Islamic religious tradition allows for the use of force and threats. Nuclear weapons will be a tool that allows the Ayatollahs to carry out their Shiite Islamist agenda and move on to control the world.


The Way I See It......the only way to completely remove the danger of Iran's nuclear weapons is to abolish the rule of the Ayatollahs.  Now that the world has done away with the economic sanctions weapon, there are only two ways left to achieve that goal: one, to encourage the young, secular adult majority to fight the regime and two, aid the minority groups in destabilizing the regime and undercutting its unity.


Dr Kedar states, ''Iran's rulers are weak, afraid of the people, looking for outside enemies, lost in their own extremist rantings that are an attempt to hide their weaknesses. It would not be very

Dr  Mordechai  Kedar

difficult to overthrow the present regime.''  The moral justification for this is solid: the Ayatollah's have been undermining Lebanon's government since 1980 and recently, doing the same in Yemen. They supply arms, weapons and money to Assad, the mass murderer, and are largely responsible for the blood spilled in Iraq.  They are behind terror worldwide, and have justly earned the world's desire to be rid of them and send them to a place where they cannot inflict any more damage on the human race. That, of course, would be the end of the Iranian nuclear weapons issue.


The questions that remain are straighforward. Does the world sees the dangers facing the world from the Iranian regime? Does it realize the real situation in Iran, the reality described in this article?  And does the world have the courage to do what is needed to solve, in passing, the Iranian nuclear problem?

Part 2 - More Insight into the Obama and Iranian Nuclear Deal !

The devil is not in the details. It’s in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama’s fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve detente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.
 

In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized “successful regional power,” Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.
Inspections: They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become “manage access.” Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.

To give a flavor of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran’s lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, “the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site, so that’s not appropriate.” Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so — after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?

Coming clean on past nuclear activity: The current interim agreement that governed the past 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran’s nuclear program if you have no baseline?

After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponization facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future,

Kerry shrugs off concerns over access.

“not fixated on the past and that we have “absolute knowledge of the Iranian program anyway'' — a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back.

Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven’t budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?

Sanctions relief: These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we’re going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That’s 25 times the annual budget of the infamous Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.

Yet three months ago, Obama expressed his usual nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It’s not the issue, he said. The real issue is “snap-back” sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in

violation. I'm sure reality will snap-back and hit him between the eyes soon enough.

Good grief. Iran won’t be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?

Nonnuclear-related sanctions: The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of nonnuclear sanctions. What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.
  
At first, US policy was that Iran must not have a nuclear program and it would impose sanctions that it would trade away for Iran abandoning its nuclear program. Then Washington’s position was that Iran could have nuclear reactors but not a uranium enrichment capacity.

Now, the US position is that Iran is entitled to master the entire nuclear fuel cycle in all its aspects and to sustain a large and growing nuclear capacity, and that within a few short years every single notional restriction should be lifted, except that Iran promise not to acquire nuclear weapons.

Western analysts optimistic about this deal are creating a make-believe Iran in their heads. For a start, the Iranian regime is the first since Adolf Hitler’s to have official anti-Semitism as a core part of its

governing ideology.  Jewish shop shut (1933).

As recently as a few weeks ago, one of Iran’s most senior military commanders, in making it clear that any deal with the US would not moderate Tehran’s political and regional behaviour, declared that the right to wipe Israel off the map was non-negotiable.

None of this is even to scratch the surface of Iran’s continued illegal importation of dual-use technology, its role in killing American soldiers in Iraq, the testimony by American military leaders that the new wealth Iran will receive from sanctions relief will be used to finance more international terrorism, its support for Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah, still defined as a terrorist group in Australian law, in Lebanon, or extremists in Yemen.

Charles Krauthammer ( an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political

commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide ) [photo left] writes:

When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined ''The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,'' you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. 

Then on Tuesday the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published…
Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?… Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave.  

They did !
The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but also to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf… The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny any and all international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The approval process can take 24 days. And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.  No wonder Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani   (photo above) boasts that this deal is a ''Win-Win for Iraq.'' 

The Way I See It.......in my view, the [nuclear] deal represents complete strategic capitulation by Obama to a steadfast and ruthless administration in Tehran. Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?

With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal. And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb. Crazy !!

Thanks to Obama, Islamist Iran now on the Path to Nuclear Weapons !

Greg Sheridan (the Australian's foreign editor, is the most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism. After 25 years in the field, he is a veteran of international affairs)  warns that Barack Obama has given Iran a nuclear deal it can rort sideways:

The benefits in this deal for Iran are immense. It gets tens, ultim­ately hundreds, of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. 

Despite the nonsensical notion of a sanctions “snapback” if Iran is found to violate the deal, the business of constructing international consensus for effective sanctions is so laborious, painstaking and time-consuming that once sanctions are gone there is very little chance of their ever being imposed again, especially as Iran will deny any violation.

Iran also ...  does not have to destroy or abandon one single nuclear facility. But what about inspections, won’t they prevent Iran from cheating? The inspections regime in this deal is infinitely weaker than that which the Americans previously said was their absolute minimum. There are no surprise inspections and military facilities are altogether off the table. Don’t we need Iran’s help to confront Islamic State? Isn’t Iran becoming more moderate?

As to moderation, the allegedly moderate President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was marching through the streets of Tehran last Friday at the head of the annual “Death to America! Death to Israel!” parade, in which those two plainly moderate and reassuring slogans were shouted by the crowds.

Colin Rubenstein [photo below] (Senior Lecturer in Politics at Monash University and Editorial Chairman of Australia/Israel Review) :

Even if Iran abides by the deal, it will retain most of its nuclear program and all its facilities, but will be prohibited from expanding or modernising its uranium enrichment infrastructure for at least a decade. After that, it is effectively open slather…
While the sunset clause is a huge concession to Iran, there are serious doubts that even the 10-year time frame can be maintained because of the weak inspections regime and Iran’s history of concealing its nuclear sites. 

Earlier this year, US  President Barack Obama promised that a deal would allow for “anytime, anywhere” inspections. However, that is not in the deal. Instead, the deal provides for “managed” inspections that require international inspectors to comply with a convoluted dispute resolution mechanism whenever they want to inspect locations outside known nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz. 

The process is likely to take a minimum of 24 days. Therefore, there can be no “surprise” visits and the dispute mechanism will provide Iran ample time to conceal any breaches before allowing in inspectors. 

“Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?” an angry Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (photo below), said. “That’s a lot of time to flush a lot of meth down the toilet. What were these idiots thinking?”

Obama has claimed sanctions will simply “snap back” if any breach by Iran is detected,

but such claims appear fanciful. Not only do the inspection problems make it very unlikely Iran will be unambiguously caught cheating, once sanctions are lifted reinstating them would require a long process of consideration by a joint commission consisting of Iran and the six world powers before the issue can be referred back to the UN Security Council.

Furthermore, once sanctions are lifted — probably later this year — it will free about $150 billion that Iran can use to further its plans to dominate the region and export its “Islamic Revolution” — which include its funding of the Assad regime in Syria and Houthi rebels in Yemen, and supporting terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The Way I See It......
It seems that the deal the U.S. and Europe have struck with Iran over its nuclear program means:

- Iran does not have to dismantle its basic nuclear infrastructure.
- Iran needs to wait just 15 years before most of the supervision stops.
- arms embargoes on Iran, a fascist power sponsoring leading terrorist groups, end after just five years.
- the sanctions will gradually lift, and the challenge will be to reimpose them if there’s a breach of the deal by Iran.
- surprise inspections of suspect sites other than the agreement’s designated site are severely limited, with Iran given the power to delay them by 24 days.
- breaches of the deal by Iraq are meant to see sanctions “snap back”, but the UN has 65 days before agreeing to reimpose the ones it voted for.  

Netanyahu sums up this deal: ''I think Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal'' he said. ''This strikes me as seriously naïve and dangerous ''.

Mini-ICE AGE Coming to a Planet Near You !

Global warming hysteria is so yesterday !

The earth is 15 years from a "mini ice-age" that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.

Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun's activity which they claim produces "unprecedentedly accurate predictions". (See my previous posting:The Sun is Responsible for Warming !)
 

They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s.
 

Solar activity will fall by 60 per cent as two waves of fluid "effectively cancel each other out", according to Prof Valentina Zharkova.
 

In a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, she said the result would be similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century.  “In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun," she said. "Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder minimum''.
 
Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.

In England during this "Little Ice Age", River Thames frost fairs were held. In the winter of 1683-84 the Thames froze over for seven weeks, during which it was "passable by foot", according to

historical records.

Prof Zharkova said scientists had known about one dynamo caused by convecting fluids deep within the sun, but her research appeared to have uncovered another. "We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the sun’s interior," she said.

"They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent."

This had helped create a picture of what would happen in the 2030s.

"Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity," Prof Zharkova said. "When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

The Way I See It.....a number of recent studies show an unexpected link between solar activity and

climate change. It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions.

The sun's impact on the climate is a matter of current debate, especially as regards the less-than-expected global warming of the past 18+ years. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but these studies reveal that direct solar energy and sunspot intensity is the most important factor that should concern scientists of every ilk and how it has effects on atmospheric and ocean circulation. Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2

The SUN is Responsible for Warming !

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a "strong and stable correlation" between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and stated:

"We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable."

Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods. 

 

The authors find a lag of 30-40 years between changes in solar activity driving temperature, likely due to the huge thermal capacity and inertia of the oceans. Lead time shown in bottom graph of 40 years shows the temperature response following an increase or decrease of solar activity lags by about 40 years. Top graph shows "the anti-phase relation between [solar activity and temperature] keeps them stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past."

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming). 

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period,  
which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral  shows remarkable correction with global temperatures. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that Carbon Dioxide had NO SIGNIFICANT influence (also here).



Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the "pause" and cooling since. 

 

We have thus shown

• Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
• The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it's the Sun !

 

But wait, there's more. Please see the two previous posts demonstrating that the alternate 33C greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, not CO2 or water vapor, physical proof & observations that water vapor is a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, and physical proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant global warming. All of the above also strongly suggests the increase in CO2 levels is primarily due to ocean outgassing from warming oceans from the Sun, not from CO2 radiative forcing warming the oceans, and not primarily from man-made CO2 emissions.

 

The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO₂ concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO₂ and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895.

We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past.
 As a contrast, the correlations between CO₂ and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.
 

The Way I See It.......the question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth's climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth's magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth's climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).

The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.

Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used. Based on the estimated length of SC23 then being 12.6 years, considerably longer than SC22 of 9.6 years,¹ he predicted cooling during the coming SC24 for certain locations. One can see a hint of this in the Chart showing 18 years of no warming with a slight temperature decrease in the last 2 years. Maybe the Russian scientists were right in 1972 when them predicted the start of a new Ice Age in 2100.

The U.S. Supreme Court Ambushes the Constitution !

The US Supreme Court has decided by the barest of margins - five votes to four - to invent the right to same-sex marriage in direct opposition to the expressed views of voters in several states. Here is
the magnificent dissenting judgement of Justice Samuel Alito:

''At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution.'' 

Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”  

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.''

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.''  

Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices [5 for vs 4 against] can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.'' 

Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends. What travesty is coming next?''

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation… But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial coup d'etat.
Liberals have become accustomed to the idea that Supreme Court decisions can help, but never hurt, their causes. But that isn’t true. At one time, the Court held that there is a fundamental constitutional

right to own slaves, which Congress could not limit in the territories. (The justices in the Dred Scott majority were loyal Democrats, doing their party’s bidding much like today’s progressives.)

Subsequently, the Court held that wage and hour laws were unconstitutional because they infringed the fundamental right of contract. Both of those cases were decided on precisely the same theory as the Court’s gay marriage decision, i.e., substantive due process.

It is disheartening to see the almost universal acclaim received by a decision that is, in terms of process, a raw and unconstitutional usurpation of power. One would think that there should be many Americans who care about the Constitution, regardless of their views on gay marriage. But that does not appear to be the case.

The Way I See It......what would you think if the Court had decided the opposite? That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?

I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes, not by political activists filling out the court along with Obama's cronies.

I realize that hardly anyone on the Left acknowledges any obligation to be consistent. But logically, the issue of same sex marriage either is governed by the Constitution, or it isn’t. The truth is that the Constitution is silent with regard to marriage, which has always been a matter of state law. To assert that the Constitution mandates gay marriage is as outrageous as to assert that it prohibits gay marriage. It does neither.

The Case for American Exceptionalism on this July Forth !

What defines and makes America great? Do the people who helped shape American history deserve to be considered heroes, or monsters? These are the questions that have come to define American culture, our view of Americas as both a people and as a nation, and America’s response to the world.

Dinesh D’Souza, (photo right) the creator of 2016: Obama’s America, and Gerald Molen, the Academy Award-winning producer of Schindler’s List, offer an invitation to history that cannot be refused. In America, they bring us face-to-face with the heroes who suffered, bled, and sacrificed their lives in order to build a great nation: Christopher Columbus crossing an ocean to discover the New World, George Washington fighting as British bullets whiz by his head, Frederick Douglass demanding that America live up to the promises of her Founding Fathers, and Abraham Lincoln sacrificing thousands of lives, and losing his own, to right a great wrong of history.

The roster of historical heroes is impressive, and necessarily controversial: each of these juggernauts have been deliberately and callously dismissed over time by forces seeking to diminish and redefine their place in history. Columbus? Genocidal monster. Washington? Slave-owning white man. Douglass? Self-hating, race-betraying Uncle Tom. History shows that each of these men, caught at the crossroads of hope or disaster, helped form a nation and became heroes for all time. But progressives (meaning deadshit socialists) and their ilk have long understood that by changing what they represent, and by altering their significance, you change what the result of their efforts–their nation–means.

The film’s website offers the most succinct and direct synopsis of D’Souza’s newest theatrical opus:

Someone once observed: “America is great because she is good; if she ever ceases to be good she will cease to be great.” Today that notion of the essential goodness of America is under attack, replaced by another story in which theft and plunder are seen as defining features of American history – from the theft of Native American and Mexican lands and the exploitation of African labor to a contemporary foreign policy said to be based on stealing oil and a capitalist system that robs people of their    the “fair share.”

Secularists, liberals, and historical revisionists have long understood the power of words, history and perception. They learned early on that what made America so great was its understanding of itself as an exceptional nation, led by exceptional people, unlike any other the world had ever known. But the things that had contributed to American greatness; free market capitalism, liberty, self-reliance, and rule of law all ran contrary to the ideals of collectivists and progressives.

In order to achieve their agenda, it became necessary to diminish or redefine those events and persons that confound their preferred narrative, one in which America is no greater than any other nation. These are the modern “99 Percenters”, the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Hope & Change crowd that helped secure two Presidential victories for Obama, who by himself, showed us how so unexceptional he is. D’Souza explores the fevered imaginations of these misguided souls to attempt to ferret out their methods and motives.

His efforts achieve the desired effect: America demolishes the worn out progressive list of grievances progressives have compiled over time in their efforts to subvert the nation to an ideology of self-hatred and division. Interviewing notable leftists and progressives, D’Souza attempts to discern and understand their raison d’être, finding little but deception, greed and hatred. Along the way,
D’Souza discusses the meaning of the Texas Revolution with Senator Ted Cruz  and Hispanics in America with Republican activist Artemio Muniz, and contrasts the history of Black poverty with African-American entrepreneurship that actually created wealth.

D’Souza sounds the alarm against those who would “first have to unmake America” by redefining and transforming it. Using President Obama’s own words against him–”You didn’t build that,” “If you like your doctor, you can keep him,” and “most transparent administration in history” are just a few examples–D’Souza lays bare the nihilistic ideology of the Left. Progressives not only use falsehood and deception to win arguments and elections, but perpetually blame America for various “sins,” insisting it is unworthy to occupy the position of esteem and power it has attained through its actions around the world.



When confronted with actual history, progressive indictments against America fall apart, and they fall silent when presented with the possibility of a world without America. In the last century alone, with actions in WWI and WWII, America saved the civilized world. In spite of her detractors, who focus on the few failings of America, and who insist that the nation is a bigoted, discriminatory place with sins that could never possibly be forgiven, around the globe, when crises of hunger, war and natural disaster arise, it is to America that the world’s eyes quickly turn. D’Souza reminds us all that this fact is with good reason: because despite all its flaws, America is good, has done good, and will continue to do good, as long as we remember and uphold those qualities that made her so.

The Way I See It.......America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights. There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States.

While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia.