News

University Study: One Billion to Die From Climate Change

According to a press release from Western University in Canada:

If global warming reaches or exceeds two degrees Celsius by 2100, Western University’s Joshua Pearce says it is likely mainly richer humans will be responsible for the death of roughly one billion mainly poorer humans over the next century.

Their solution is also found in the presser:

A Western-led study proposes aggressive energy policies that would enable immediate and substantive decreases to carbon emissions and recommends a heightened level of government, corporate and citizen action to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy, aiming to minimize the number of projected human deaths.

The press release and subsequent study are vivid illustrations of how the climate agenda is nothing more than a Marxist scheme to cripple America first, then the rest of the developed world, particularly Europe.

Since 1917, when communism claimed Russia, the leading cause of unnatural death–in the entire world–has been Marxism in its various forms. The Marxist’s know once America falls, the rest of the dominoes will follow and they can seize the global population.

Note the first sentence in the press release: richer humans will be responsible for the death of roughly one billion.  This is agitprop.  Rich vs poor, us vs them. It’s what the communists do to destroy free markets.

Now note the sentence: a heightened level of government, corporate and citizen action to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy, This is code for government enforcement of limiting personal and property rights, picking corporate winners and losers, and empowering stakeholders to shut down Big Oil. Their decarbonized world will skyrocket inflation, trash the dollar, give us an energy grid filled with rolling blackouts and insecurity, and offer the power elites the opportunity to control the “lesser minded” while they rake in cash and life in abundance.

Follow my Weekly Video Podcast on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@BrianSussmanShow/podcasts

CALIFORNIA’S TROPICAL STORM: a sign of Climate Change?

This article will be featured in the September Edition of the Buffalo Gap News Roundup

The global-warmers and their comrades in the media got a big treat in August as Tropical Storm Hilary (sounds scary already) hit southern California. Despite what the “journalists” had to say, similar events have occurred in California before. In 1985, remnants of Hurricane Guillermo created rain that quenched a forest fire near San Jose. In 1976, the Los Angeles area was his with remnants of a tropical storm, killing quite a few people; and in 1936 (perhaps hottest year ever recorded), a tropical storm smashed San Diego, creating millions in property damage and claiming the lives of quite a few people as well.

Of course, the media was all about trying to tie Hilary to climate change.

Total bunk.

Really? Let’s begin with the biggest storms on earth, hurricanes. Are there going to be more, because so far there aren’t?

Dr. William Gray was a friend of mine; prior to his death in 2016, he was unquestionably the world’s foremost hurricane forecaster. He founded the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University in the 1960s, where he developed the fine art of forecasting hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin, including the Gulf of Mexico.  Numerous times Dr. Gray told my radio audience, “I am of the opinion that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Gray’s opinion was not based on a gut feeling—it was founded on science. And he was not alone. “All my colleagues that have been around a long time—I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the National Hurricane Center—we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming,” said Dr. Gray.

Indeed, another pioneer in hurricane research, and a thirteen-year Director of the National Hurricane Center, Dr. Neil Frank, told the Washington Post, “It’s a hoax.”

In terms of a count, since we started keeping track of these storms, the years with the most major hurricanes have been 1950 (8), 2005 (7), and in 1999, ‘96, ’64, ’61, ‘55, and ‘26 there were six each year. The only apparent trend with hurricanes is that there is no trend associated with warming or change.

Additional hurricane stats that defy the climate change narrative:

Deadliest: More than 8,000 people perished September 8, 1900, when a Category 4 hurricane barreled into Galveston, Texas, destroying more than half of the city’s homes.

Highest Winds: A hurricane slammed into the Florida Keys during Labor Day, 1935.  Sustained winds reached 200 mph with higher gusts. 408 residents died.

Biggest Surge:  In 1969, Hurricane Camille produced a 25-foot storm surge that swept far inland into Mississippi and Alabama.  Camille was the strongest storm ever strike mainland America.  The hurricane caused the deaths of 256 people.

 Earliest and latest:  The hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30; the earliest observed hurricane in the Atlantic was on March 7, 1908, while the latest observed hurricane was on December 31, 1954.  The earliest hurricane to strike the United States hit northwest Florida, June 9, 1966.  The latest was November 30, 1925, near Tampa, Florida.

Hurricanes are a necessary component of the earth’s overall atmosphere, responsible for transferring heat from the equatorial regions to the higher latitudes which are naturally much colder. Hurricane’s balance out the global temperatures

At the end of the day, God has got this weather thing handled. Psalm 19:1 tells us: The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands.

Watch Brian’s video podcasts on YouTube. Look for the “Brian Sussman” Channel.

Hunter Biden on the Grill, Dems Predictable Counter Punch

During yesterday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on the Internal Revenue Service’s investigation of Hunter Biden, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia produced a series of images showing Hunter Biden in multiple compromising situations while cavorting with, well, let’s just say “paid professionals.”

“Before we begin, I would like to let the committee and everyone watching at home [know] that parental discretion is advised,” Greene said.

She noted that documents show Hunter Biden appeared to pay for prostitutes to travel across state lines, which she framed as a violation of the Mann Act.

“So when Hunter Biden paid for this woman to do this with him,“ Greene said as she held up images of Hunter Biden having sex with a woman,  “ … this is a violation of the Mann Act. This was prostitution.”

Greene then cited claims that Hunter Biden wrote off as a business deduction what he paid to prostitutes.

“Should we be displaying this, Mr. Chairman?” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland grumbled at one point.

Call Congresswoman Greene crazy, but the truth is it’s the Democratic party that is okay with pornographic literature in the elementary school classrooms.

How did the Democrats counter these accusations against Hunter Biden? By claiming the GOP was guilty of systemic racism via a “two-tier justice system.”

Climate Change Agenda is “shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” says Nobel Physicist

Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative, calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

Clauser has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognize its importance in sustaining plant life. 

According to a statement by Dr. Clauser posted at CO2Coalition.org, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

Dr. Clauser received a Bachelor of Science in physics in 1964 from Caltech. In 1966, he earned a Master of Arts in physics as well as a Doctor of Philosophy in 1969 from Columbia University. From 1969 to 1996 he worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley. He was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2010. Additional details can be found at https://www.johnclauser.com/.

Faith in Climate Models is Foolish

One-point-five-degrees.

That’s the atmospheric warming threshold—the tipping point—that the public has been led to believe must be avoided at all costs. The climate catechism contends since the last Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago, the planet was naturally unthawing just fine until humans discovered the energy available through the use of fossil fuels and capitalists, exploiting labor, launched the Industrial Revolution.  Billions of humans later—with their countless polluting cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes—the temperature has risen 1.2o Celsius, and it’s soon to hit the danger mark of 1.5o if we don’t quickly conform to Net Zero.

If that doesn’t work, more drastic measures must be considered because all of the experts with their computer models say so. And trust me, drastic measures are being designed by both governments and billionaires.

But, taking a step back, let’s imagine a conversation with your average climate change believer.

You ask,“If we’ve already reached warming worth 1.2 o C, what’s another point-3-degrees going to look like? Will we even notice the difference in average temperature?”

The climate disciple will immediately go to Google and then respond, “The planet is currently experiencing some of the warmest weather on record.”

“And what about the recent record cold temperatures?”

Feeling it unnecessary to engage their phone, they quickly answer, “There are none.”

“Really? Last winter the summit of Mount Washington, New Hampshire reported a wind-chill of minus 78 Celsius (-108 Fahrenheit) — the coldest temperature ever recorded in the United States. California had its firth coldest March since 1885.”

“That’s not the world, that’s the United States.”

“You’re correct. How ‘bout this? In 2021, the average temperature at the South Pole between their winter months of April and September, was minus-78 degrees Fahrenheit (minus-61 Celsius), the coldest on record;  The extreme cold pushed sea ice levels surrounding the Antarctica to their one of their highest levels on record.”

“Fake news.”

“No. It’s real info from the United States Antarctic Program administered by the National Science Foundation, and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.”

“Meh,” the person shrugs, flipping to their TokTok feed.

And as for those climate models?  There’s a big problem.

Clouds associated with thunderstorms play a major role in the climate cycle, as they reflect the sun’s energy back into space and also trap the heat that rises from the surface; but climate models cannot accurately account for thunderstorms, nor clouds, or even water vapor. Additionally, the models are unable to replicate the actions produced powerful ocean currents which are essentially massive weather conveyor belts.  Weather patterns are driven by these currents, which are created by a combination of surface winds, water temperature and salinity gradients, Earth’s rotation, and the gravitational effects of the sun and moon which create the tides.  These magnificent ocean currents transport warm water and precipitation from the equator toward the poles and cold water from the poles back to the tropics, regulating the global climate and counteracting the uneven distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface.

The models can’t handle these features.

So, what do the climate modelers do when they just don’t know?

They approximate.

And what they can’t approximate they omit.

Perhaps this is why the models have a dismal track record. Apart from failing to predict a pause in global warming in the early 2000s, the models are known even by modelers to consistently run hot.

Could it be human bias and political agenda weighs in to the estimations made by certain modelers?