Willful Ignorance is Not a Good Look!

Where the hell is William Barr? Or is he truly just another swamp creature?

According to a forensic investigation: Dominion Software Intentionally Designed to Influence Election Results

13th Circuit Judge Kevin Elsenheimer approved a forensic examination in Bailey v. Antrim County, which alleges the infamous vote flip county officials reported last month may have not been the result of human error despite the narrative being pushed by Michigan election officials and Democrat propaganda machine aka the media. Elsenheimer later approved making the findings public.

Russell Ramsland Jr., a former Reagan administration official who has also worked for NASA and is a co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, released this preliminary statement.

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.

Russell Ramsland, Jr.

Somehow, this is not surprising since this is the very system designed and used to put and keep Hugo Chavez in power in Venezuela. And that is a fact, jack!

Ramsland pointed to the fact that the tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for the county showed 15,676 individual recorded events. Of those, some 68 percent were recorded errors.

“These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rate proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.

Ramsland went on to say that a staggering number of votes required adjudication!

This was an issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server, which points to intentional system changes. These intentional changes lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail (more on that in a second)!

The statements by Democrat election officials attributing these issues to human error are not consistent with the forensic evidence, which points more directly toward systemic changes intentionally designed to create errors to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication (which means somebody decides, after the fact, who gets that vote).

Of course, Democrats are already howling this report is full of lies and/or false conclusions. I might buy that, especially if I was a Democrat … except for one small thing.

And that is … no audit trail!

Crucial security and adjudication logs are mysteriously missing from Antrim County’s Dominion Voting Systems machines. Hmmm! What an amazing coincidence.

I work in IT, and I know how logs like that work. They do not just disappear. They have to be intentionally removed. The lack of these logs prevents any form of audit accountability, and their “convenient” absence is extremely suspicious since the logs for all previous election cycles are still present. This is another indication of foul play.

This means that, while you can see that errors occurred, conveniently for the Democrats, you cannot go in and see what the errors actually were or how they were adjudicated. The only possible conclusion is that the 2020 cycle logs in these Dominion machines were manually removed to prevent the discovery of proof of fraud. In and of itself, for anybody with a thinking brain and an understanding of computer logs, this is proof of fraud.

It may not matter in the long run. They can probably just rely on the willful ignorance of too many Americans and the media’s willingness to dutifully squash the story for their masters.

I don’t care if you are a republican, a democrat, an independent, or what; you should not be okay with the fraudulent use of our election process and the destruction of our system of government. You should want every LEGAL vote counted and a peaceful transition of power once that occurs. But if this election is allowed to stand without a COMPLETE and VALIDATED recount, we are already Venezuela; we just don’t see it yet.

Climate Change: Just Follow the Money!

Who is really polluting the climate change debate?

I have not met too many conservatives who do not want clean water, clean air, or who want the world to end in 2012! Oh, wait! We are past that already. Well, let’s just say twelve years from now! I get a real kick out of these climate alarmists running around warning us that if we don’t give them all our money, the world will end in twelve years, while at the same time, they are planning long-term fundamental changes to our country.

I mean, if we’re all going to die, what’s the point …

While we can all certainly agree we should be good stewards of our planet, we must take a scientific-based approach to ensure its longevity. However, Congress has proven time and time again that they are great at ignoring real science and incredibly incompetent when it comes to making smart decisions. Or, at least decisions not based on direct influence from wealthy mega-donors.

You can find a study to back any position!

For example, in the 1960s, industry-funded research was designed to downplay the risks of sugar while highlighting the hazards of fat. The study was requested by an industry group called “the Sugar Research Foundation” who needed evidence to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease.

The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did precisely that. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. It suggested there were significant problems with all the studies that implicated sugar. It concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

So, what does that have to do with climate change research?

Not a damn thing! But it does show you that, with enough money, you can get whatever research results you want. Even from some “highly respected” sources.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. While it is true that the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government and left-wing foundation funding only go toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. What we actually have is a pre-determined public-policy outcome buying research to support its program. The resulting government and left-wing foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity than the actual risk of global warming is to our planet.

With the fate of the U.S. economy, and perhaps the planet at stake, you would think Americans would want the actual facts!

But some people in the government and the media work very hard to keep the facts from getting in the way of good brainwashing!

Back in 2015, the New York Times and the Boston Globe pointed to documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, and attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon by suggesting that he hid $1.2 million in research funding contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” Their stores were part of an ongoing campaign by Greenpeace and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

However, by choosing to not be impartial watchdogs, and closely allying themselves with radical activist groups, those reporters fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming research funding.

The Smithsonian Institute, which employs Dr. Soon, told the Times it appeared the scientist had inadvertently violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter.

Soon is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.

“It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding.

In fact, it is almost impossible for some of the world’s top climate scientists such as Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, and MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen to get funding for their work. This is because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

It is interesting to point out here that, back in the 1950s, a study by MIT showed that when the government funds research through grants, it typically receives the results it wants. Amazing, isn’t it! It shocked the nation back then. I believe it has only gotten worse today.

Contrast this treatment with that of Michael Mann

Mann is the director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was also at the center of the 2009 Climate-gate scandal. This occurred when uncovered e-mails between climatologists revealed they were discussing how to skew scientific evidence to support their claims as well as how to blackball experts who don’t agree with them.

Mann is a prime example of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government, which by the way, will gain massive regulatory power if their climate legislation is passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. This number is provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute. This amount dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

According to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann received some $6 million, mostly in government grants, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money WHILE he was being investigated for his Climate-gate e-mails.

So where is the “free and balanced” press?

I used to cringe at the statement that the mass media has become the enemy of the American people. Now I am in agreement. They more I see, the more I believe many in the media are directly supporting a left-wing takeover of this country.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as The Times have ignored the government’s heavy-handed role in directing climate change research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations; funding that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Media outlets have also been one-sided in their reporting on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The NY Times trumpeted Greenpeace’s FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors. Yet, they have ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings by the Competitive Enterprise Institute requesting funding source disclosures of external income of NASA scientist James Hansen, a key ally of Al Gore.

The fact that we have experienced a lack of “global warming” for over a decade and have actually experienced dangerous and record-breaking low temperatures combined with scandals such as Climate-gate are strong evidence that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis in an effort to gain power and control.

Failure of the media to cover both sides of the debate fairly while attempting to shut up their critics shows either a clear disregard or ignorance of the real threat to science.

What Causes an Ice Age to End?

The information below is taken from an article in the March 13th, 2020 Science and Environments University of Melbourne Newsroom. My father, who is a retired chemical engineer and has long been interested in and researched the concepts of “global warming” and “climate change,” shared this with me. Any edits I made are purely personal wording preferences.

Ice Age Team Drysdale

The team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. Image: Linda Tegg

This team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. According to Linda Tegg, the new University of Melbourne research had revealed that ice ages over the last million years ended when the tilt angle of the Earth’s axis was approaching higher values. During these times, more prolonged and warmer summers melted the sizeable Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, propelling the Earth’s climate into a more heated “interglacial” state, like the one we’ve experienced over the last 11,000 years.

The study by Ph.D. candidate Petra Bajo and colleagues also showed that summer energy levels at the time these “ice-age terminations” were triggered controlled how long it took for the ice sheets to collapse, with higher energy levels producing fast collapse. Researchers are still trying to understand how often these periods happen and how soon we can expect another one. Since the mid-1800s, scientists have long suspected that changes in the geometry of earth’s orbit are responsible for the coming and going of ice ages. In essence, the uncertainty has been over which orbital property is most important. Petra Bajo’s paper, (Persistent influence of obliquity on ice age terminations since the Middle Pleistocene transition), published today in Science, moves closer to resolving some of the mystery of why ice ages end by establishing when they end.

The team combined data from Italian stalagmites with information from ocean sediments drilled off the coast of Portugal. “Colleagues from the University of Cambridge and Portugal’s Instituto Portugues do Mar e do Atmosfera complied detailed records of the North Atlantic’s response to ice-sheet collapse,” said Associate Professor Russell Drysdale, from the research team. “We could identify in the stalagmite growth layers the same changes that were being recorded in the ocean sediments. This allowed us to apply the age information from the stalagmite to the ocean sediment record, which cannot be dated for this period in time.” Using the latest techniques in radiometric dating, the international team determined the age of two terminations that occurred about 960,000 and 875000 years ago. The ages suggest that the initiation of both terminations is more consistent with increases in Earth’s tilt angle. These increases produce warmer summers over the regions where the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets are situated, causing melting. “Both terminations then progressed to completion at a time when Northern Hemisphere summer energy over the ice sheets approached peak values,” said Dr. Drysdale. “A comparison of these findings with previously published data from younger termination shows this patter has been a recurring feature of the last million years.”

The team plans to have a closer look nest at the Middle Pleistocene Transition when the average length of ice-age cycles suddenly doubled in duration.

Additional information from NASA on Earth-Axis Tilt and Seasons

Link to the University of Melbourne Newsroom Article.