Monthly Archives: June 2019

An Inconvenient Glacier: Study Shows Greenland Glacier Growing.


An Inconvenient Glacier: Study Shows Greenland Glacier Growing

Written by James Murphy

Thursday, 28 March 2019

Over the past two decades, the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland had been melting at what climate alarmists might term an alarming rate. However, a new study published in Nature Geoscience has concluded that since 2016, the Jakobshavn Glacier is now growing again.

Using airborne altimetry and satellite imagery data, the study concludes that since 2016, the glacier has been advancing. The data used was from NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission. The study was conducted by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with contributions from Remote Sensing Solutions in Barnstable, Massachusetts, and the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.

The study traces the glacier’s growth spurt to a naturally occuring cycle of cooler water in the North Atlantic more than 600 miles south of the glacier. Researchers posit that the cold water was set in motion due to an effect known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which causes the Northern Atlantic to switch slowly between warm and cold every five to 20 years.

The water in Disko Bay, where the glacier meets the Atlantic, is now 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it was just a few years ago, causing the Jakobshavn Glacier to grow. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they’ve been since the mid-1980s.

And, boy, were the scientists surprised about it.

“At first, we didn’t believe it. We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last twenty years,” said Ala Khazendar, a research scientist at JPL and the lead author of the study.

Around 2012, Jakobshavn had been retreating at roughly 1.8 miles, and thinning at about 130 feet, annually. However, according to the study, it has been growing again at roughly those same rates since 2016.

As far as ice loss and its potential contribution to sea-level rise, the Jakobshavn glacier is one of the most important in the Northern Hemisphere.

“This was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said ice and climate scientist Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.”

Box was not a part of the study, but he called Jakobshavn “arguably the most important Greenland glacier because it discharges the most ice in the Northern Hemisphere. For all of Greenland, it is king.”

Another NASA scientist, who was not part of the project, lauded the OMG mission for its groundbreaking scientific potential. Tom Wagner, NASA Headquarters program scientist for the cryosphere, said, “The OMG mission deployed new technologies that allowed us to observe a natural experiment, much as we would do in a laboratory, where variations in ocean temperature were used to control the flow of a glacier. Their findings — especially about how quickly the ice responds — will be important to projecting sea level rise in both the near and distant future.”

But in 2019, where climate is concerned, there can never be good news. Any study must be spun to include impending disaster.

Scientists connected to the study were quick to point out that the glacier’s growth is only an “interruption” of the expected long-term glacial melt supposedly caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

“Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern. But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland’s ice sheet,” according to Josh Willis of JPL, the principal investigator of OMG.

In other words, the growing glacier is only evidence of a brief respite from the scourge of man-made global warming. Once the North Atlantic Oscillation changes back to warmer water, future glacial melts will be catastrophic.

“All this is an indicator of how sensitive glaciers are to ocean temperatures,” Khazendar explained, hinting that that’s not a good thing.

“In the long run, we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” said Willis.

Climate scientists cannot simply report on findings without linking them to future disaster. Any study, even one showing an obvious slowdown in global warming — a growing glacier — must be linked to catastrophic climate change. It’s another sure sign that the study of climatology is as much political as it is scientific.

Negative Impact Of USMCA On U.S. Cattle Industry Predicted.

download (14)

Negative Impact of USMCA on U.S. Cattle Industry Predicted.

Written by Steve Byas

Thursday, 28 March 2019

“The likely impact of the USMCA [United States, Mexico, and Canada Agreement, which the Trump Administration is pushing to replace NAFTA] on the U.S. cattle industry will be substantial, and will be substantially negative,” predicted Bill Bullard of the R-CALF USA.

R-CALF USA filed its final submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) this week, in an effort to ensure that the ITC’s report to President Trump and Congress will accurately describe the likely impacts of USMCA on the American cattle industry. The report of the ITC is required under a 2015 law, assessing the likely impact of the USMCA on the U.S. economy in general, and on specific sectors of the economy in particular.

While Trump campaigned vigorously against NAFTA during his successful 2016 presidential run, R-CALF contends that “the USMCA adopts the same provisions in the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) regarding cattle and beef trade.”

And those NAFTA provisions were “disastrous to independent cattle producers because they empowered multinational beef packers to indiscriminately displace domestic cattle and beef production with cheaper, undifferentiated imports of both cattle and beef,” R-CALF argued. “This has substantially weakened the U.S. live cattle supply chain and infrastructure, which has substantially reduced competition for the industry and is contributing to the hollowing out of America’s rural communities.”

Rather than just make general statements, R-CALF cited very specific ways that the NAFTA agreement has harmed the U.S. cattle industry, noting that these provisions are continued under the proposed USMCA. “Twenty percent of all U.S. beef cattle operations exited the industry from 1994 to 2012,” the group said, citing the latest available census data.

The U.S. beef cow herd has declined to the lowest level in seven decades, with nearly three million head less than in 1994. Forty-eight percent of U.S. beef packing plants have left the industry since 1995.

Before NAFTA, the share of U.S. cattle producers of every consumer beef dollar was 56 percent — by 2017 it had declined to just 45 percent.

In short, R-CALF lamented, “NAFTA has displaced domestic beef and cattle production.” USMCA promises a continuation of the same policies of NAFTA.

“In conclusion,” Bullard explained, “because NAFTA incorporates NAFTA’s fundamentally flawed provisions, it should be expected that the USMCA will now cause the elimination of the critical mass of competitive marketing channels and industry infrastructure needed to sustain an independent family farm and ranch system of cattle production in the United States. Thus, the new USMCA will accelerate the destruction of the U.S. cattle industry as we know it today.” (Emphasis added.)

The only years that cow/calf returns per bred cow exceeded the NAFTA period’s $37 average [it was $50 during the seven years prior to NAFTA] was during the time that the U.S. banned Canadian cattle imports, in 2004-2005, and after the 2009 implementation of the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. Unfortunately, under pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. Congress meekly repealed COOL in December 2015 for beef and pork products.

With this repeal of COOL, consumers can no longer know from what country their beef or their pork is coming. One of the requirements for “pure competition” is that a consumer be reasonably well-informed about the product for sale. Considering that the average American, given a choice, would be more likely to buy beef from western Oklahoma than western Canada, it is clear that the repeal of COOL for beef and pork is detrimental to the American beef and pork producers.

Bullard, when asked about COOL by The New American, explained that the argument made by those who lobbied for Congress to terminate COOL for beef and pork is that beef from foreign countries “meets the same health and safety standards” as U.S. beef. But, Bullard said, “This notion that beef is beef is false.”

Bullard offered as an example of why it is false. He said that U.S. cattle producers are required to obtain veterinarian certification before administering antibiotics, but this does not apply to any other nation. He said this is not the only difference, but rather that there are a “host of differences” between the requirements placed on American beef producers and their foreign competitors.

Finally, if the United States is going to remain a sovereign nation, Congress should make appropriate regulations on interstate commerce and foreign imports, not the WTO, and not agreements such as NAFTA, USMCA, and the like. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” and no provision is made in the Constitution for Congress to delegate that power to the executive branch, or to any foreign body, such as the UN, the WTO, or USMCA.

Hopefully, Congress will reassert itself and kill USMCA — the latest assault upon our national sovereignty. In other words, Put America First.

Earth Day Exposed As Hippie Envirohoax. Convicted Murderer, Leftist Ira Einhorn Co-Founded Earth Day.

download (2)


Forget Earth Day; Remember Murderer Einhorn, Its Co-founder, and the Bogus Claims of His Movement.

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood

April 22, 2019

It’s Earth Day again, so for the 49th time, mankind must suffer through another harangue about impending doom. But the one thing you won’t hear anywhere in that harangue is the bloody history of Earth Day’s illustrious co-founder, Ira Einhorn.

An inconvenient truth about him, as The Daily Caller quipped in borrowing Al Gore’s movie title, is this: He murdered his girlfriend in September 1977, composted her in a closet, fled to Europe, and hid for nearly two decades until the long arm of the law caught him.

Leftist Nutter Becomes Killer

Einhorn, who dubbed himself Unicorn, was “a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie,” as NBC described the murderer in 2011.

The hirsute “charismatic spokesman” for the radical Left, however, “had a secret dark side,” which girlfriend Holly Maddux didn’t find out about until it was too late.

When Maddux broke up with Einhorn and split for New York, he told her to fetch her belongings from his apartment or he’d toss them in the street. “And so on Sept. 9, 1977, Maddux went back to the apartment that she and Einhorn had shared in Philadelphia to collect her things, and was never seen again,” NBC reported. “When Philadelphia police questioned Einhorn about her mysterious disappearance several weeks later, he claimed that she had gone out to the neighborhood co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned.”

The Unicorn lied.

Cops went back to his apartment 18 months later, NBC reported, after a neighbor “complained that a reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid was leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet. Inside the closet, police found Maddux’s beaten and partially mummified body stuffed into a trunk that had also been packed with Styrofoam, air fresheners and newspapers.”

Cops arrested Einhorn, but he posted bail and fled the country in 1981. His attorney was future Senator Arlen Specter, who “assembled a group of his client’s supporters to serve as character witnesses, which helped Einhorn get released on bail,” OZY reported.

Lawmen nailed him in 1997, and while waging a four-year battle against extradition, the Associated Press reported, “Einhorn thumbed his nose at American authorities by appearing on television shows to discuss his plight and sipping wine while posing naked for photographers in his garden.”

Extradicted in 2001, Einhorn actually claimed the CIA murdered Maddux and framed Einhorn, NBC reported, because he was the real-life version of the man who knew too much. Einhorn expected jurors to believe the CIA whacked Maddux because Einhorn might spill the beans about the agency’s research into the paranormal.

Einhorn, who viewed himself as a “planetary enzyme,” and “catalyst for change,” told jurors about his “Virgo Moon,” AP reported.

The judge called him “an intellectual dilettante who preyed on the uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.”

In 2002, a judge sentenced Einhorn to life in prison.


The judge was on to something, and not just about Einhorn. The movement he helped found also preys upon the “uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting and inexperienced.” One might also say the credulous.

The American Enterprise Institute, using a no-longer-available article from Reason magazine, compiled a list of the myriad failed, but widely accepted, outlandish claims in 1970 from the movement’s leaders and its scientists, who retailed them as what they call “settled science,” or as Gore might say, “inconvenient truth:”

• The New York Times, after Earth Day 1: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

• Population control fanatic Paul Erlich: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Life magazine: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…. By 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

• Ecologist Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”