Welcome And A Good ------ ------ There Are Enjoying Hardcore News! ------ Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News Web Site! ------ The Most Comprehensive Global News On The Internet! ------ Your , Area's Most Updated News In The , AND THE WORLD! ------ PLEASE NOTE: Hardcore News Is Best If Used With Firefox Or Google Chrome Gecko Type Browser: ------ Hardcore News Web Site Is Best Using A Screen Setting Of 1024 X 768 Or Higher... ------ Your Current IP Address Is From Internet Provider ... This is All We Know About You, Ever Wonder What Kind Of Information Other Web Sites Could Get From Your Computer?... PLEASE BE CAREFUL Who You Share Information With Online! ------ By submitting personal information to any U.S. website, you are consenting that your information is being maintained and or being used here in the United States, is subjected to applicable U.S. laws. Thus... U.S. law may be different than the laws of your home country. ------ Hardcore News IS SAFE! We Never Track Your Moves Or Sell Your Information. ------ The Only Bull-Sh-t On This Site Is The Propaganda! ------ Stay Informed With The Hardcore News ------ All News is AUTO-UPDATED - AUTO-GENERATED Via Keyword Search Terms And Use Of RSS Based News Feeds And Tabbed Headlines On One Page ------ News From Over 40 Reliable News Sources, Even The News Your Not Supposed To Know! ------ PROVIDING UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS With LIVE Video Feeds FROM AROUND THE WORLD! ------ OUR NEWS IS ALWAYS FRESH DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------ If You Like This Project And Would Like To See & Help It Grow, Please Consider Donating What Ever You Can By Secure PayPal CLICK HERE ------ Please make a gift to Hardcore News today. Your continued support will ensure that Hardcore News is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure. And Thank You, ------ Only YOU Can Make This Project Worth While! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------
Hardcore Main Stream
Top Stories

Mid East Watch

Politics

Tech News

Entertainment

Sports News


Monday, June 24, 2013

Delusional: Google’s Eric Schmidt Claims Media Help Climate Skeptic ‘Liars’

By Matthew Sheffield | June 06, 2013 | NewsBusters

In a bizarre speech, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt blasted the news media, saying reporters “don’t believe in facts” when it comes to their coverage of the discussion over whether or not humans are increasing the Earth’s temperature.
But Schmidt was not talking about the fact that the Earth’s median temperature has not increased in over 10 years or that the Earth has experienced ice ages when the atmospheric CO2 content was 5 times its current amount. Instead, the top Obama adviser was ranting against “liars” who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Because a sufficient number of people do not buy into the climate hype, this creates inaction on the part of government, Schmidt alleged, according to a report by the technology blog The Verge.
“The media gets confused because they don't believe in facts, and public policy people get confused because they don’t believe in innovation,” the former Google CEO is quoted as saying at an event his company sponsored called “How Green is the Internet?”
It would also appear that Schmidt sees some sort of conspiracy to prevent people from knowing the “truth” as he sees it. Such a conspiracy cannot last long, however, according to the top-dollar Obama donor:
“You can hold back knowledge, you cannot prevent it from spreading. You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you’ll be seen as a liar.”
Assuming the linked report above is an accurate portrayal of the event, it would appear that Schmidt, who is famous for his love of data, has clearly not seen the evidence. As NewsBusters has reported for years, the American news media cannot in any way be construed as anything but biased in favor of climate alarmists.
Here are just a few recent headlines from our site chronicling the media’s obvious favoritism toward Schmidt’s belief:
NewsBusters has published literally hundreds of stories documenting media bias toward proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory. Eric Schmidt is entitled to believe what he wants about science but to imply that the American press is in some sort of conspiracy to “hold back knowledge” about his belief is flat-out false. If the media are guilty of anything, it is their unquestioningly worshipful coverage of hucksters like Al Gore looking to line their pockets through corporate welfare while proclaiming their desire to save the Earth.
Even if Gore et al. are correct in their beliefs, it is undisputed that the legislation favored by climate alarmists would do basically nothing to curb global carbon emissions. Only drastic, economy-destroying measures would solve the “problem,” yet these two facts are almost never pointed out in the popular media. It is probably safe to say that Schmidt does not see this as an effort to “hold back knowledge.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/06/06/google-s-eric-schmidt-blasts-liars-who-refuse-believe-man-made-gl#ixzz2XBOhFavu  

Global Warming Scientists Give World Governments Tax Incentives

JULY 29, 2013 BY RICHARD LARSEN - WesternJournalism 

It’s always fascinating to see the public responses to columns challenging the notion that man is “causing” the earth to warm. Predictable are the personal attacks against such purveyors of contrarian dogma, as well as references to the favorite buzzwords and invalidated theses. It’s difficult to understand such fierce loyalty and fealty to a theory invalidated by their own models. Whether they’re looking for meaning in life by “saving the world” by diminishing their CO2 footprint, or they’re susceptible to the mainstream media propagandistic endorsement, it’s hard to say.
Let’s start with the obvious, which for some is not obvious, nor easily accepted. According to NASA, global temperatures have not increased for 15 years. The chart for actual temperatures can be found here from NASA which cliearly illustrates the cessation of warming in 1998. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif.
The plot appears dramatic, but notice the scale on the left axis. From 1880 to 2013 the range is eight tenths of one degree Celsius.
We can then look at the chart developed by former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy which plots 73 global warming models. http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png. The models’ projections are based on climate sensitivity to manmade carbon dioxide. In other words, the models reflect the premise that man is causing, or at least contributing significantly to, warming of the planet. Yet not one of the models even comes close to reality based on NASA’s empirical data. The mean average for those models is nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than what has been observed for the past 15 years.
Why is this significant? Because it shows that, based on their own theories, and their own calculations of climate sensitivity to manmade CO2, that they’re all wrong. If their theories about the greenhouse potency and feedback of carbon dioxide emissions were correct, their model projections would match reality. And it’s not the earth that’s at fault; it’s the models and their underlying theory! When they’re so wrong for so long, how can anyone with a semblance of cognitive functionality even possibly consider taking them seriously!
I can’t help but conclude what a phenomenal job it is to be an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scientist. Come up with these alarmist theories to provide global governments the premise to regulate and tax what we exhale as a pollutant; rake in hundreds of millions from government grants to do so; generate sophisticated models to ring the warning bells of catastrophic manmade global warming; be proven totally wrong empirically, and yet still be heralded by media, academia, environmentalist activists, and low-information citizens, as ultimate authorities on the issue, and claim to be right!
With such an abysmal record of projecting reality, now 15 years and running, it would be like a stock analyst in my industry forecasting a decade-and-a-half of bull markets, and be proclaimed a market guru even if all 15 years were bear markets! It’s logically impossible to be right, as claimed by media, academicians, and AGW sycophants, when the alarmist’s calculations, as evidenced by their projections, are completely wrong!
Last month the German news publican Der Spiegel interviewed Hans von Storch, renowned German Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Storch said “scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be fundamentally wrong.” Could be? Do you think? After fifteen years of being wrong, it seems rather obvious that the underlying premises have already been empirically invalidated. He continued, “We are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”
“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added. Now that’s an astute statement of the obvious. And notice how he was more concerned that they were all wrong, rather than that the earth was facing cataclysmic warming.
And just a quick note on the “97% of scientists” buy into the AGW hypothesis statement so often repeated by the alarmists. This figure of “consensus” originated from the “Doran Survey.” This was a nonscientific survey of 77 climate scientists polled for a master’s thesis. And it’s been debunked as a flawed and statistically invalid “survey.”
So how do most scientists really feel about AGW? According to Forbes, citing peer-reviewed surveys in February, only 36% of geoscientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, and a solid majority believe what warming is occurring is from natural sources.
If the AGW argument was correct, their models would be accurate. Since they are not, their basic premises are obviously flawed. And to say there’s a consensus is equally fallacious.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.
- See more at: http://www.szaboservices.com/show/global-warming-scientists-give-world-governments-tax-incentives#sthash.uZCQFdsn.dpuf

RELATED:
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations 

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
Mr. Secretary-General:
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.
The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.
Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused. 

If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth? 

Saturday, June 22, 2013
by Mike Adams
Editor of NaturalNews.com 

For only "pennies a day," any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That's the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada. "1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved... these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day," the ad says.

View it yourself in this picture taken from a greenhouse supply magazine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/CO2-Generator-Section.jpg

CO2 generators "improve plant quality" and "increase production." They're made in the USA and run on propane or natural gas, turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.

Why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because -- are you ready for the truth? -- CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.

Nope, it's not a pollutant that threatens human civilization as has been ridiculously claimed by global warming doomsday pushers. CO2 actually increases plant yields, accelerates "re-greening" and improves reforestation of the planet. And while today's atmosphere contains only 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, CO2 generators can help raise that level to 1500 ppm inside greenhouses, therebyaccelerating plant growth and food production.

Here's the ad so you can see it for yourself:

Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?

If CO2 was so terrible for the planet, then installing a CO2 generator in a greenhouse would kill the plants. But scientists and even governments actually recommend supplementing CO2 in greenhouses in order to boost plant growth and food production.

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years," says the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

"CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient... increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."

In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts and arid areas, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses which produce the oxygen human needs to breathe.

Attacking carbon dioxide is hate speech against Mother Nature

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean. Anyone who criticizes CO2 is attacking ocean life and condemning trillions of aquatic creatures who exhale carbon dioxide as part of their natural respiration. (Should they all be fined?)

As a society interested in reforestation, expanding the diversity of plant life, nourishing trees and re-greening deserts, we should no longer tolerate anyone engaged in hate speech against Mother Nature and CO2. Those who attempt to demonize this critical nutrient for the planet are engaged in a kind of hate-motivated racism against plants.

If it's not okay to condemn someone for being black, why is it okay for people like Al Gore to engage in endless hate speech against all the living beings that are green?

Besides, all those people who keep sounding the alarm on CO2 are being too negative all the time. Nobody spews more doom and gloom than Al Gore and the global warming crowd who paint apocalyptic pictures of Earth's future if we all don't start paying carbon taxes to the super rich. Stop being so negative!

They need to practice more positivity and repeat to themselves affirmations like:

"CO2 is a nutrient for forests."

"CO2 is produced by ocean life."

"CO2 brings balance to the global ecosystem."

"CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans."

"CO2 can help transform barren deserts into sustainable forests."

Perhaps by staying positive, the global warming fearmongers and doom-and-gloomers can calm down, take a few breaths (with extra CO2) and recognize that what's good for plants is good for the planet.

In fact, I'm going to hyperventilate after writing this article just to generate a little extra CO2 for the world. It's my gift to Al Gore.

For the record: NO, I don't support burning fossil fuels

The No. 1 criticism of this story by the brainwashed hoards of Al Gore cult worshippers will be that I must have been paid big bucks by the coal industry to write this article.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm the record -- for at least a decade -- having exhaustively condemned the burning of fossil fuels. Even though the CO2 they release into the atmosphere is actually a nutrient, they release many other pollutants such as sulfur and mercury (from coal). Scrubbers in the USA make U.S. coal plants the cleanest in the world, but China's coal plants are truly sickening pollution factories.

I also believe it's time to get humanity off the petrochemical habit and onto something cleaner and more renewable such as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), formerly called "cold fusion." Recent analysis has confirmed, yet again, that cold fusion is real and practical. Cold fusion could be harnessed and used in place of coal to heat large quantities of water that drive steam turbines which generate electricity.

In time, all of America's coal power plants could be switched over to cold fusion. Similarly, if improved battery technology comes along, gasoline-powered vehicles could be switched over to electricity, and if that electricity is powered by cold fusion, then it's clean all the way through the energy supply chain.

Fossil fuels are dirty business: they're dirty to extract from the ground, dirty to transport and dirty to burn. But the CO2 they produce is not a pollutant; it's a nutrient that's desperately needed by trees, grasses and shrubs all around the world. So while there are lots of reasons to oppose the burning of fossil fuels around our planet, CO2 is not legitimately one of them.

If all this talk makes you hyperventilate, then feel free to experience a hefty dose of self-inflicted guilt that you can alleviate only by sending all your money to Al Gore for all the carbon dioxide you're generating.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html#ixzz2WzV8hauG 

www.TheHardcoreNews.com www.HelpTheMissing.com www.SzaboServices.com www.WrestlingUndressed.com www.EntertainmentAlive.net   #HardcoreNews #SzaboServices #WrestlingUndressed #EntertainmentAlive #HelpTheMissing 

Hardcore News Is Brought To You By...

Facebook Social & Comments

Hardcore Links