People are so clueless, and cannot do their homework. Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election, September 12, 2018. A new Youtube video is out explaining this executive order. Trump witnessed the fraud in the 2018-2018 mid-terms and issued this order to warn and prepare the country for the coming elections in 2020. Given the massive amount of cases now coming before courts in State and Federal jurisdictions, and the over 1000 affidavits that now exist from USPS employees, Dominion employees, the seizures of Dominion servers in Germany, and Spain, and the statistical reviews done by intelligence agencies now assisting in the investigation, anyone can see that this will not be like the Gore/Bush debacle in Florida. That mess only got more sophisticated, more developed, and more pernicious with the advent of mail-in voting, and non-US computer system being used domestically to count the vote. Really? We have INTEL, AMD, IBM, ORACLE, and others, and we cannot develop our OWN voting system? Just tragic. The left can bitch and moan (no change from the last 3.5 years) but I am gonna sit back, get some popcorn, and watch the fireworks. Should be a "special" holiday season this year! HAHA!

Karl Denninger covers the reasons for the Japanese success on market-ticker.org. (Hint: buy a bidet.) Does this help the discussion? From Judith Curry's blog: (see her blog for figures. I was unable to cut-and-paste them. Sorry.) The progress of the COVID-19 epidemic in Sweden: an analysis Posted on June 28, 2020 by niclewis | 14 Comments By Nic Lewis The course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden is of great interest, as it is one of very few advanced nations where no lockdown order that heavily restricted people’s movements and other basic freedoms was imposed. As there has been much comment, some of it ill-informed, on how the COVID-19 epidemic has developed in Sweden, but relatively little detailed analysis published in English, it is worth exploring what their excellent publicly-available data reveal. I present here plots of weekly new cases and deaths, with accompanying comments. I have been able to access detailed daily data from 2 April on.[1] Overall development of the epidemic Figure 1 shows the overall picture for confirmed weekly total new COVID-19 cases, intensive care admissions and deaths in Sweden. The dashed line normalises new cases by the dividing by the number of tests carried out each week, relative to those for the week to 10 April. Both actual and normalised weekly new cases have been divided by 10 in order to make their scale comparable to that for ICU admissions and deaths. Fig. 1 Total weekly COVID-19 confirmed cases, intensive care admissions and deaths in Sweden Several points are noteworthy: Recorded new cases continued rising until mid-April, and after gently declining from then until late May have doubled since then. All or most of that increase appears to have been be due to a decision on 5 June to expand testing. By the end of June testing was at about double the rate in May, which in turn averaged approximately 25% higher than in April. Allowing for the increase in testing over time, the incidence of COVID-19 appears to have declined by about 30% from mid-April until the late May and has since remained broadly stable. Deaths peaked in mid-April and have fallen by two-thirds since then. It follows that the infection fatality rate has fallen substantially since early in the epidemic. Deaths have been remarkably high in relation to confirmed cases. To a substantial extent this reflects Swedish policy of focussing testing in hospital, where the disease is severe, prior to June. It also reflects the spread of infections to care homes, where death rates are very high, relatively early in the epidemic. Far more people have died than have been put into an intensive care unit (ICU). This likely reflects a combination of deaths outside hospital and an apparent Swedish policy of not generally putting people aged 80+ into intensive care.[2] For admissions before late April, 49% of 70+ year old patients (who only comprised 15% of total ICU patients) died, and most of those were people in their seventies, for whom the prognosis is much better than for older patients. Analysis by age group The changing age composition of new cases over time is shown in Figure 2. The number of cases among people aged 70+ has been declining since mid-April. Until the end of May this more than countered gently rising infections in age groups younger than 60, with infections among 60-69 year olds broadly stable. But since then confirmed infections in people under 60 have rocketed, and there has also been a noticeable increase in infections among people aged 60-69. It is likely that the bulk of these increases simply reflect the widening of testing in June. The total number of tests in the latest week was double that four weeks previously. The Swedish Public Health Agency estimates that the current reproduction number, Rt, in Sweden during mid- June was approximately 0.9, implying a decline of about 10% a week in the true number of new infections. However, comparing Figures 1 and 2 suggests that while infections in the oldest age groups are reducing steadily, this is being counterbalanced by an increase in infections among young people, resulting in little overall trend in the total number of infections. Fig. 2 Weekly COVID-19 confirmed cases by age group in Sweden Weekly COVID-19 recorded deaths have declined very substantially since mid-April, across all age groups (Figure 3). The data show the number of people with confirmed COVID-19 who died, regardless of the cause of death. Fig. 3 Weekly COVID-19 recorded deaths by age group in Sweden Figure 4 shows weekly deaths by age group as a proportion of new cases two weeks previously. Since most cases are only confirmed after hospitalisation, the average delay from a case being confirmed to death occurring is around two weeks.[3] This ratio therefore should provide a reasonable estimate of the hospital case fatality ratio (CFR). It has declined substantially for all age groups, albeit proportionately less for ages 80+, where it remains very high, although not unusually so. The estimated hospital CFR for ages 50–69 has declined by an order of magnitude, while that for ages 70–79 has declined by a factor of three. The reasons for this extremely welcome trend are not entirely clear. Much of the reduction over the last few weeks is very likely due to a widening of the testing regime to include milder cases of disease, with more cases now being found outside hospitals.[4] Nevertheless, a good part of the decline is likely real: most countries have seen a decline in the hospital CFR over time. Fig. 4 Weekly COVID-19 deaths by age group in Sweden as fraction of new cases 2 weeks before Infection fatality rate over time The decline in total deaths (Figure 1) is to a fair extent due to the changing age composition of new cases, as well as a moderate reduction in total infections, with an increasing proportion of cases among younger age groups and a substantial decrease at ages 80+, which account for most deaths. But within some of the key older age groups, which account for the vast bulk of deaths, the number of deaths (Figure 3) appears to have dropped in relation to the number of cases as adjusted for the widening of testing – certainly for ages 60-69. The Swedish Public Health Agency estimated the infection fatality rate (IFR), based on a selection of confirmed cases that have been tested in Stockholm County and who fell ill on March 21-30, 2020, after adjusting by the estimated proportion of infections that resulted in confirmed cases.[5] Of all people who they estimated to be infected with COVID-19 around the second half of March, 0.58% died.[6] In the group At age 70 and over, mortality was 4.3% (1.9% for ages 70-79) , while it was 0.09% for persons younger than 70 years.[7] [8] The overall deaths were pushed up by the spread of infections to care homes, residents of which accounted at that point for 40%–50% of total deaths. The order of magnitude decline in COVID-19 CFR at ages below 70 since mid-April implies that, even assuming that all the change in confirmed cases between early April and mid June is due to the three-fold expansion of testing, the IFR below age 70 is now much lower than the previously estimated 0.09%. The data indicate a current level of circa 0.015%. Even for ages 60-69, where the IFR for infection in mid-March was estimated at 0.45%, the implied IFR is now little over 0.1%. It is not clear what has caused such a large reduction in IFRs for COVID-19 at ages below 70 years. Sweden is not the only country in which the IFR appears to have declined. There is little evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus having mutated and become less damaging. However, treatment of serious cases has no doubt improved; less use of invasive ventilation could be one factor here. Seasonal factors may also play a role. The body’s ability to fight infections and heal damage appears to be affected by sunlight exposure, with vitamin D and nitric oxide pathways perhaps both being involved. Another important factor in the decline in the IFR over time could be population heterogeneity in susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, in particular variability arising from biological rather than social connectivity factors. More susceptible individuals may not only be more likely to succumb to COVID-19, but more likely to die of the disease once infected. Since more susceptible individuals will tend to become infected earlier in the epidemic than less susceptible individuals, a correlation between susceptibility to infection and risk of death if infected would automatically lead to the IFR declining over the course of the epidemic.[9] Regional analysis I turn now to regional analysis. Figure 5 shows weekly confirmed new cases for each of the 21 regions in Sweden. Although widening of testing varied between regions, it is evident that Västra Götaland dominates the overall increase in cases over time. However, the increase in testing during the first half of June appears to have been much larger in Västra Götaland than elsewhere, so the true increase in disease incidence is likely far smaller than the increase in confirmed cases suggests. Cases in Jönköping also rose sharply in June, albeit from a much lower level. Cases in the Stockholm region remain high. Tracking serious cases only, so as to adjust for the widening of the test regime, comparison of the latest analysed week (24 – week ending19 June) with the average of the previous three weeks shows an increasing number of cases in Västernorrland, decreasing numbers in Jönköping, Stockholm, Sörmland, Uppsala, Västra Götaland and Östergötland, and an unchanged number for other regions.[10] Fig. 5 Weekly COVID-19 confirmed cases by region in Sweden Regions have varying populations, so confirmed cases per 100,000 head of population give a better picture of relative disease incidence (Figure 6). Fig. 6 Weekly COVID-19 confirmed cases per 100,000 head of population by region in Sweden Deaths by region are shown in Figure 7. They are dominated by deaths in Stockholm region, which continue to be higher than elsewhere, although since mid-May deaths in Västra Götaland have become a much more substantial proportion of the total. Fig. 7 Weekly COVID-19 recorded deaths by region in Sweden The very large and almost monotonic decrease in deaths in Stockholm region, confirms that the less steep decline in cases from mid-April to the end of May (which occurred despite some increase in testing) is genuine. As already indicated, the sharp increase in confirmed cases in June is an artefact produced by the widening of testing; serious cases decline in Stockholm county. Prevalence of COVID-19 infections Analysis of samples collected at week 21 (late May) shows that antibodies were detected at 6.3% of the studied population. Seroprevalence remains lowest among adults 65-95 years (3.9%), compared to adults 20-64 years (7.6%) and children 0-19 years (7.5%). The Stockholm region had the highest proportion of antibody positive (10%) followed by Skåne (4.5%) and Västra Götaland (2.7%). The number of collected samples for other regions were less than 100 and therefore cannot provide reliable results.[11] Cumulative confirmed cases as a proportion of population up to the end of week 19 (15 May), who would be expected to develop antibodies by early in week 21, were 0.32% for the whole of Sweden, 0.47% for Stockholm region, 0.11% for Skane and 0.29% for Västra Götaland. So, up to mid-May, if the foregoing prevalence estimates are correct then confirmed cases represented about 1 in 20 of people who had developed antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but with an inter-region range of at least 1 in 40 to 1 in 10. However, previous results showed higher prevalence, and prevalence cannot decrease over time. A fairly large sample study that sought response from a random sample of households in the Stockholm area obtained 446 valid results from tests on an average date of 11 April (week 16), reflecting infections up to late March. It found 10% prevalence.[12] And a study based on blood donors showed about 11% had developed antibodies in mid-April, although the sample size was only 100. Moreover, the antibody tests used appear to have a sensitivity of only 70-80 percent, so 20-30% will test negative even though they have been infected. But the tests have 100% specificity – no one will test false positively.[13] There is no indication that any of these seroprevalence results have been adjusted for the relatively low sensitivity of the test used. So it seems likely that in all cases the true prevalence was 25-43% higher than that reported. Many people with mild COVID-19 symptoms or asymptomatic infection probably do not develop antibodies in their blood, either developing antibodies only in their mucus or not at all. Antibodies are only one component of the adaptive immune system, and immunity conveyed by the development of SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cells may be more important; it is likely to be longer lasting. Having regard to all these factors, it seems entirely possible that 20% rather than 10% would be a better estimate of the proportion of the population of Stockholm region that had been infected by late May. Future outlook It seems clear from the trend in cases since then that, as I intimated previously[14], by mid- April the herd immunity threshold had been reached in Stockholm county. Moreover, both there and in Västra Götaland, the two regions that have dominated deaths to date, deaths have been declining since mid-May. Regression of the logarithmic change in deaths over the last seven weekly data points gives similar results in both regions. The fits are good[15] and the slope estimates, averaging them, imply that each week’s death figure is only 81% to 86% ( at ± 1 standard error) of the previous week’s figure. Skåne, the next largest region by population, also has a downward trend in deaths, but the regression fit is less good and the slope estimate is not significant (p = 0.1). Those three regions make up 53% of Sweden’s population. For Sweden as a whole the fit is as good as for Stockholm country and Västra Götaland , with a slightly slower rate of decline: each week’s estimate deaths are 84% to 88% of the previous week’s. This range is slightly below the R value in mid-June estimated by the Swedish Public Health Agency, which has fluctuated around 0.9. The difference is likely to reflect the declining proportion of new cases made up by older age groups (Figure2) and the declining infection fatality rate for ages under 70. If the estimated logarithmic rate of decline in weekly COVID-19 deaths in Sweden seen over the last six weeks continues, only about 1,100 further deaths would occur. That would bring total deaths up to approximately 6,400, or 0.06% of the total population. Of the first 4,500 deaths, some 40% involved people living in care homes,[16] a slightly lower proportion than earlier in the epidemic. To date, the average age at death was 82, and in only 6% of cases did a death not involve a co-morbidity (other health condition). Conclusions Notwithstanding that a month ago antibodies were only detected in 6.3% of the Swedish population, the declining death rate since mid-May strongly suggests that the herd immunity threshold had been surpassed in the three largest regions, and in Sweden as a whole, by the end of April. In the absence of a change in trends, it seems likely that the epidemic will peter out after a thousand or so more deaths, implying an overall infection fatality rate of 0.06% of the population (0.04% excluding COVID-19 deaths of people in care homes). This is broadly comparable to excess deaths from influenza infections over two successive above-average seasons, such as 2016–17 plus 2017–18.[17] The absence of a lockdown order, with the government largely trusting people to make their own individual decisions regarding their behaviour, informed by their particular circumstances, has enabled life to continue with less disruption and reduction of people’s autonomy in Sweden than in most other western European countries. While this has also meant that COVID-19 deaths to date have been higher than in some (but not all) other countries in which a lockdown was imposed, the wider spread of the epidemic in Sweden means that the future COVID-19 outlook there is better. The herd immunity threshold is likely lower at present than it would be if people were behaving completely normally; it may also be seasonally lower. However, the continuing spread of infections since the peak of the epidemic, particularly among young people, should provide some margin of safety against its resurging when behaviour returns closer to normal and summer ends. That is, there is less risk of a second wave of the epidemic next winter. And if a second wave occurs, fewer measures should be needed to control it than in other countries. Nicholas Lewis Originally posted here, where a pdf copy is also available [1] On 2 April 2020 the cumulative number of cases was only one-twelfth its current level, and only 5% of the deaths recorded to date had occurred. Updated data for 19, 20 and 21 June were not prepared. In order to avoid these days and plot as many weeks as possible, I use data for Thursday 2 April 2020 and each 7 days thereafter, ending 25 June. For consistency between the breakdowns by age and region, I use the data as originally reported on each date, not the final adjusted daily figures (which are not reported by age group). There is some lag in reporting, particularly for deaths. [2] Such a policy would be understandable, as the prognosis for 80+ year-olds given invasive ventilation in ICUs is extremely poor, with many of those who do survive then having a poor quality of life. [3] The average delay between a case being confirmed and death occurring is 12 days. (https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/t/the-infection-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-in-stockholm-technical-report/) However, there is a significant delay between sickness arising and cases being confirmed. On average, it takes 11 days between sickness and the start of intensive care. [4] The earlier increase in testing, from mid-April to mid-May, appears to have largely been targeted at, and detected more cases in, health and care staff. In week 20 (mid-May) the proportion of confirmed cases comprised of healthcare and care staff was as high as 74% in the Kronoberg region. https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [5] They assumed that the estimated infections were spread evenly over the population of the Stockholm region, that is an age-independent atack rate. [6] Measuring instead by the number of excess deaths in the relevant period over the estimated average number suggests a slightly higher overall mortality rate of 0.7%. However, mortality earlier in the 2019-20 winter period was lower than average, as it also was in the 2018-19 winter, so there were probably more than usual very old people likely to die from infection when COVID-19 struck. By week 23 (week ending 5 June 2020) the difference between the two measures was only about 10% (4,811 vs 5,353). (https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/globalassets/statistik-uppfoljning/smittsamma-sjukdomar/veckorapporter-covid-19/2020/covid-19-veckorapport-vecka-25-final.pdf) [7] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [8] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [9] If much of the variability involved arose from whether and how many cross-reactive T-cells – such as arise from previous exposure to common cold coronaviruses – an individual possessed, the much smaller decline in IFR for 70+ age groups might perhaps be due to the T-cell senescence that occurs in old people. [10] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [11] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [12] https://www.kth.se/aktuellt/ny... [13] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inr... [14] https://judithcurry.com/2020/0... [15] The R-squared is close to 0.90 in both cases. [16] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet... [17] https://www.folkhalsomyndighet...

NASA is not providing reliable information on Arctic or Antarctic sea ice and temperature or CO2 related information. Tony Heller has an extensive list of videos on YouTube for those who truly have a scientific bent, and watching these will help reveal to all the manipulation being used by organizations like NASA/NOAA to arrive at conclusions that no real scientist would embrace. https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA This video is about the inaccuracies in Arctic ice reporting and data, and false conclusions about CO2 having an effect. I challenge everyone to find Heller's other material, particularly on Antarctica, and see for your self how the scam started in the last few decades of the 20th century by the fraud Michael Mann (hockey stick graph promulgator, and adjudged fraud in a BC court) has been promoted by junk science ever since. Two towering works of science relating to CO2 are the William Happer interview, covering his knowledge of CO2 lasers and the molecule itself and its inability to hold even trace amounts of heat, and the Easterbrook video giving testimony before legislators (there are now two Easterbrook videos). It has been stated above that there is proof of warming and the effect CO2 is having on our current climate. NONE of this proof actually exists, and where people have drawn on data that seems to indicate warming and sea level rise the REAL data analyzed by current practitioners shows the use of serious and unacceptable manipulations on the part of the alarmists. A famous scientist once said don't bother arguing with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Climate discussions can only be fruitful when the REAL scientists are involved and REAL (un-manipulated) data is used to try and then arrive at conclusions about what is happening. In the current discussions dominated by junk science from NASA/NOAA/UN/IPCC this is not possible. Politicization of science has never, and will never work.

Tony Heller's excellent review of FACTS relative to the Peterman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... He has several other videos on even more updated statistics about increased snowfall in Greenland and the Antarctic, the world's largest land glaciers.

Those in the media who have taken the time to check the 11,000 list have already identified names like Dr. Mickey Mouse. Hmmm. More fakes to come. I was actually impressed that Disney Studios would pay for continuing education for their stars. (HEHE!) Politics does not determine the earth's climate. Scientific research and analysis discovery the real trends. Let's get back to some of that, shall we?

Big Questions, Big Lies by Allan Weisbecker Big Questions, Big Lies by Allan Weisbecker NOAA’s ‘Sea Level Trends’ website. Ever seen it before? No? You’ll want to come back to this one Note on the imagery: The graphs are from NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) ‘Sea Level Trends’ website, which, on its own, proves that ‘Climate Change’ (AGW, or man-caused) is a fraud. As far as I know, I’m the only source who quote NASA’s own numbers (NOAA is part of NASA) to expose their deceit. This will be explained below. NOAA Sea Level Trends I finally got through the rest of Brief Answers to the Big Questions and in the end what jumps out at me is how often ‘Hawking’ repeats the climate change spiel, and how in many different ways he makes it clear that we are to blame, just for being on the planet. I’d bet that a lot of you are familiar with Report From Iron Mountain, a ‘think tank’ white paper (short book length) from the early 1960s, and which analyzes the possible repercussions of ‘world peace.’ This was at the time of JFK’s push to end the cold war and in fact to bring on a permanent peace, so it’s logical that such a study was actually commissioned. I phrase it thusly because if you go to a MS source it will tell you that the little book was a hoax. Read the thing (and I highly recommend you do) and you’ll immediately understand why the PTB would attempt to discredit it. It’s a real howler, in the Doctor Strangelovian sense. [Here is a download pdf of Report From Iron Mountain] Although I’m quite sure it’s genuine, I’ll not burn your time arguing the point, for this reason: The true provenance almost doesn’t matter, given that all that is said is based on (now) declassified government documents and think tank studies (a lot from the good old Rand Corporation), mostly from the ’50s and ’60s, plus a few historical references. So what Report amounts to is a summation of information/observations/agendas that were already on the record. The real meat of Report comes from its observation that social cohesion is ‘war based’ and if, for whatever reason, ‘peace should break out’, one of the results would be ‘social disintegration’ — this aside from the obvious economic catastrophe to the ‘war machine’ or ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ Eisenhower warned us about. Point being, peace would be a disaster for the PTB. The rest are a sampling, in alphabetical order. I’ll explain later The Report authors go on to postulate what sorts of ‘threats’ could be used to replace outright war, in order to politically ‘stabilize’ us peasants. In the following Report passage we can clearly see the seed of the ‘climate change’ agenda ‘Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat [Orson Wells’s ‘War of the Worlds’ radio broadcast was probably this sort of op.]; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking. [Keep in mind that the Report was from the early 1960s, before revolutionary advances in special effects, holograms in particular, likely were developed. I would also ask the reader to keep in mind my videos showing the likelihood that the Spacex launches have been fraudulent, ‘from the ground up’] Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution. [Given the timing, and reading between the lines here, we can plainly see whence the ‘climate change threat’ arose: What better ‘pollution’ could they come up with than CO2, given that – aside from the ‘carbon tax’ scam used as economic control – we exhale it with each breath, underscoring how ‘we’ are the cause of the ‘problem’] It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner. [Again, Climate Change, or AGW (anthropocentric global warming via CO2), solves the ‘politically acceptable’ problem perfectly] However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probably, in our judgement, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. [If there ever was an ‘invented’ threat, climate change is it!] [end quote] For more background on the provenance of the Climate Change Fraud, look into the Club of Rome. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome Click the above link for the details of the ‘elite’ Club of Rome’s mid-1970s addition to the Report From Iron Mountain’s agenda. But enough background. Let’s return to the matter of ‘Stephen Hawking’ and his Big Questions book. Listening to it, how he kept slipping in ‘climate change’ as the threat to the planet and its population, I found myself thinking about the sort of readership the book would get. Considering the USA and worldwide, I don’t know The only one I hand picked was Montauk, my old home base. how many advanced level physicists the Universities have put out, but I would assume a book on ‘the Big Questions’ of physics and cosmology, (supposedly) written by Stephen Hawking would be a best seller amongst this demographic. Men, You Don't Need The Blue Pill If You Do This MEN, YOU DON'T NEED THE BLUE PILL IF YOU DO THIS Growth Advice Thing is, truly, you have to read (or listen to) the book to really understand the absurd hyperbole Hawking uses to throw a scare into the reader, the ‘sulphuric acid rain’ and Venusian temperatures we’re bringing on ourselves is just one example among many. Coming from anyone else, this would be so over the top and so absurd that it would be counter-productive — and likely to evoke a belly laugh — especially with scientists. But as I say, ‘Hawking’ has been groomed as the ultimate authority figure in matters scientific. Addendum (written at the last minute): It occurs to me that my primary interest of late is figuring out how really smart people (physicists, say) could believe utterly transparent falsehoods. No, not the PTB or their minions, but the ‘man on the street’, who also happens to be highly educated and, theoretically, brilliantly-minded. How could I know so much more than he? This is why I took the time with this particular book, and would subject you to two posts on it the PTB are dead serious in their promotion of the climate change fraud. And as transparent a fraud as it is, try to find even one ‘pundit’ — no matter his/her area of expertise — who isn’t on their bandwagon. True, many are no more than useful idiots who know how the game is played, but still, this one is coming from the very top. To quote NOAA: ‘The relative sea level trend is -1.3 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2.04 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1965 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of -0.43 feet in 100 years. NINETY-FIVE % sure the sea level closest to Greenland will FALL in the next 100 years. Knowing the types of people who are likely to read this blog — I refer to not only state moles/shills but also those who have been taken in by the disinformation, again, obvious as it is — and who will come up with ‘graphs’ and ‘peer reviewed’ crapola up the wazoo, I wouldn’t be saying these things with this sort of surety if I couldn’t prove my point. i.e., the fraudulence of the climate change agenda. You have noticed that the imagery I’ve spread across this text is all graphs from various harbors and coastal cities worldwide. As I say up top, this information is from NOAA/NASA, so you’d think I’d be wary of it. But I’m not, because the stations that report these figures are independent, usually local harbormasters and such. There are too many to compromise them all, so the PTB didn’t bother. They just don’t talk about this information. (Neither does anyone else. As far as I know, I’m the only person to expose the fraud in this way, i.e., inarguably, and from their own data.) Think about it. What is the number one ‘catastrophe’ they say we are in for with climate change? Rising sea level. (The graphs were selected at random, with preference to the stations with historical data going back the farthest.) Have you ever wondered why they so rarely talk specifically about how much sea level has already risen? They’ll show you glaciers calving and ice floes at sea and they will even ‘predict’ how much sea level will rise, but why not tell us the current trends? They don’t tell us because the truth of it, the actual numbers, would expose the grand deceit. And it’s all right there on NOAA’s website. (Charts missing during the copy/paste.) In my sampling of 22 stations, the Maldives has the highest sea level rise. Click it and look: In 100 years, sea level will rise about 13 inches. When ice melts the sea level response should be almost instantaneous, shouldn’t it? Throw something massive in a swimming pool and the water rises immediately, doesn’t it? Since, according to the ‘paradigm’, humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for well over 100 years, and since (they claim) the temperature has been skyrocketing for that long, shouldn’t we notice the rising sea level? Addendum: Here is how I came across the website — the NOAA/NASA website — you see reproduced here: To quote NOAA: ‘The relative shttp://blog.banditobooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GW-cu-greenland.jpgea level trend is -1.3 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2.04 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1965 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of -0.43 feet in 100 years. NINETY-FIVE % sure the sea level closest to Greenland will FALL in the next 100 years.

Current tide gauges on the coast of NL near Scheveningen show NO sea level rise in the last 43 years. Not true. NL is doing just fine.

Tony Heller's excellent Youtube lecture on the sea level issue put forth by alarmists lays rest to this propaganda. Tide and water gauges all over the world, at different points relative to currents and weather show that sea level rise is a NON-starter, and the hype over it is akin to the hype over warming, which has also stopped as of 1998 while CO2 has climbed showing no linkage whatsoever. People who believe in this are just drinking the globalist kool-aid and falling prey to their intention to raise taxes and revenue on something else we do, so they can line their pockets even more. Over 13,000 climate experts have gone on record, insisting that AGW is nonsense, and that the models used by the IPCC are not only incomplete, but always misinterpreted. (Ex. none of the IPCC models include variables for the current pole-shift underway, and the change in cosmic/solar radiation this causes in earth's atmosphere and climate. It just might be important, don't you think?) Let's try to get back to REAL science and see if we can focus on the areas where mankind has been a poor steward of the planet, such as plastic waste, chemical dumping, cancer causing pesticides, and medicines that have no real purpose other than to feed Big Pharma. Falling for the hype is puerile, studying to understand the facts and the issues is being an adult. Let's move forward.

Crysis, 1 & 2, and futures.... COD, entire series Ghost Recon, and series Far Cry 1/2/3 Battlefield just for starters. If these had LINUX version with support for SLI/Crossfire configurations as well, it would be a no-brainer to buy and build such a machine.

I moved TO Europe from the US. I filled a full super-container, just over 40 foot, with all household goods, 2 motorcycles, and a car. The computers were packed in soft material, and I filled the inside of the desktop machines with styrofoam corals to help stabilize all contents. Silica gel used also. In the end, the container ended up arriving pretty much in tact, but got a large ding in the loading process and this tore a small 1 foot hole in the top. Rain and sea water got in, ruined a nice oriental rug, and a piece of antique furniture, but everything else did fine. The best investment of the entire move WAS THE INSURANCE. Don't leave home without it! Insure it CORRECTLY, and insure it SUFFICIENTLY to protect the assets. The comments about taking the data with you, for example, on your laptop, are correct, and leave a copy with someone else, just in case. I regularly go back and forth between US and EU and my laptop is usually left alone. Too many business people travel with one and they cannot just decide to harass the world's business community to see how many Netflix movies you are carrying. One item we did have to deal with was paying to get the container out of "storage". Strange because we were not alerted to the fact it had already arrived 10 days earlier, and was sitting in paid storage. How convenient for the "union" that arranges such things. Be a pest, ask questions, but be a NICE pest. Its your stuff, only you care. No one else does. It should all work out....really!

You may be right. Check out this basic YouTube video about the experience one person had with lights, costs, and expected regulations. Makes you go: Hmmm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gjvOOlHmsU

Actually, maybe Edison was no so off target. The truth about CFL bulbs and the eco-bulb movement is perhaps being covered up by the right lobby. Just check out this YouTube video to see what some real-life testing shows about bulbs and where your money is going. Could we be the victims of yet another corporate push? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gjvOOlHmsU Make's one say: Hmmmmmmm.........

It seems that Kentucky's legislators who were surprised by the inclusion of evolution in the ACT tests are unaware of the irony in this. Darwin's theories clearly describe that species adapt and others are left behind (to eventual extinction). The objections to the scientific certainty of evolution (yes, we use the word theory to describe it, just like Pythagoras' theorem) are proof that even in the halls of power in Kentucky there are those well on the way to extinction, protests notwithstanding. QED.

....I moved to NL in 2005, from the US, and was troubled by the poor choices for TV here. I ended up subscribing to the UK's SKY+ service, as a foreigner, and it has all the GOOD stuff from America and NONE of the bad stuff. It has ON DEMAND, it has episodes missed, it comes with a TIVO like player (1TB, 2 tuners), and it has apps for the iPhone and other devices. With the advent in the last couple of years in NL of uitzendinggemiste.nl and veamer.nl one can now see just about any material online, after the fact, whenever you want. It has gotten to the point that I don't miss ANYTHING from the US TV experience now, which includes the ridiculous amount of drug advertising on TV. With an iTunes account in the US, and the download sites in NL, I feel comfortable that most of what I would want to see is available to me for little to no effort and cost (other than the original SKY+ installation.)

I strongly encourage you to use the www.dpreview.com website for a quick review of the cameras that fit in your range, along with usable examples of the photos taken by the cameras so you have a sense of how much quality to expect. The website contains a broad range of brands, levels, and types of cameras, and you would most likely find useful information on pricing and sources of cameras there for your choice. My personal recommendation would be a Canon G-series. They are portable enough, very high quality, offer beginners some automation and allow for growth, and take outstanding quality photos. As a starter camera it might be more than you expected to pay, but if you save a few extra pennies it might just be a super photo companion for those early photo adventures. I see others have recommended the smaller models, the S95/100 models, and they are also excellent, less expensive choices. Best of luck.