Erase eSign Form Fast

To 'form fast' with airSlate SignNow means streamlining your document management processes. Our platform allows you to create, send, and eSign documents quickly, reducing the time it takes to get important paperwork completed. By simplifying these tasks, businesses can operate more efficiently and focus on growth.

With airSlate SignNow, businesses can 'form fast' without the traditional costs associated with printing, mailing, or storing paper documents. Our digital solution is cost-effective, eliminating expenses related to physical resources. This streamline not only helps your budget but also reduces environmental impact.

Yes, you can 'form fast' by taking advantage of our free trial. We offer a trial period that allows potential customers to explore our features without any commitment. This enables you to see how our platform can improve your document processes before making a financial decision.

airSlate SignNow includes a variety of features designed to help users 'form fast'. These include templates for common documents, bulk sending options, and real-time editing capabilities. These tools help streamline the eSigning process and make it easy for your team to stay organized.

Absolutely! airSlate SignNow allows you to 'form fast' by integrating with many popular applications like Salesforce, Google Drive, and Zapier. These integrations enhance your workflow by allowing seamless document transfers and eSignatures, making it easier to keep everything interconnected.

For remote teams, airSlate SignNow provides an efficient way to 'form fast' without needing to be in one location. Team members can create, share, and sign documents from anywhere, ensuring smooth collaboration. This flexibility supports productivity and helps teams stay organized despite physical distances.

You can send a variety of documents with airSlate SignNow to 'form fast', including contracts, agreements, and forms. Our platform supports numerous file types, enabling you to manage all your essential paperwork seamlessly. This versatility makes it easier for businesses to maintain compliance and organization.

For dropping some files onto a drive at work and “sneaker-netting” it home, sure, the USB Flash drive is quite good. For long-term storage? Nope. In fact, nearly any other kind of storage will be more reliable in the long term.The Architecture of a Flash CellFlash memory is a relatively recent invention, so we don’t have as much history as you might think about longevity. But enough to know that flash is a temporary thing. This wasn’t a shock or even a problem, for several reasons, but largely because in its initial use, flash memory replaced EPROM (erasable programmable read-only memory), which itself had a limited longevity.A flash memory cell is made of a MOSFET transistor with a “floating” gate. This is a gate surrounded by insulators. To write a bit, electrons tunnel through the insulator and are stored on the floating gate in a process called channel hot-electron injection. To erase a cell, Fowler-Nordheim tunnelling is used.The original sort of flash was retronymed “SLC”, for single level charge. This is what you’d expect out of a binary thing: there’s either a programmed charge on the gate (0) or no charge (1). An SLC flash cell should last about 90,000–100,000 program/erase (P/E) cycles…. some specialized parts can last 1,000,000 P/E cycles.However, flash designers got more clever, and came up with “MLC” flash, for multi-level charge. Now they could write three different levels of charge, plus no charge, to deliver two bits per cell. However, this made the cells more fragile, less robust against corruption over time. More robust “enterprise” qualified MLC flash memories used in more expensive SSDs have a write/erase lifetime of about 20,000–30,000 write/erase cycles. Normal consumer oriented MLC flash memories have delivered about 5,000-10,000 P/E cycles, and they’re down to around 3,000 P/E cycles at the 15nm node. And even more recently, we have “TLC” flash, which puts in seven levels of charge or none, to store three bits per cell. That’s one of the reasons flash memory got so cheap. But you’re going see cells failing after 1,000–3,000 P/E cycles.And here’s the other thing… flash has, for awhile, been getting worse. The highest density 2-D TLC chips may only deliver 300 P/E cycles these days. The wear mechanism in flash memory is primarily due to stress on the tunnel oxide layer in each cell. The oxide layer degrades as electrons, over time, become trapped in the oxide. And as we’ve been shrinking the chip geometries of these cells, their longevity has been dropping. Curiously, when a drive runs hotter, there’s less stress on the insulator, so the overall effect is a longer lived drive… but shorter data life. The 3-D chips used in high density flash have increased longevity and data retention, as they’ve mostly gone to larger chip geometries.Data RetentionSo as mentioned, there’s a charge — a bunch of electons — placed on an insulated gate. That’s your storage mechanism. There are only so many electrons, and over time, they’re gradually going to leak off the gate. At the high end, the specialized, small flash memories in embedded microcontrollers can be expected to last 20 years to 100 years at 25C. On the other hand, Intel recommends unpowered consumer SSDs for data retention of only a year. And this is exacerbated as the drive takes on wear.Now, for SSDs, it’s a bit different when the drive is active. Between wear levelling and data enhancing routines, an active drive will last considerably longer than a year, even the static data stored on that drive. There’s quite a bit going on within a modern SSD that you never actually see, which is designed to spread wear out across the drive. USB drives, though, don’t run data-enhancing routines.And the trend toward less reliable flash has started to reverse itself, at least for now. The 14nm or so node is about as small as a practical NAND cell can go today, even though we have smaller chip geometries. They just get too unreliable. So the larger memories coming out today, 256GB per chip and so, are actually 3D chips using larger geometries. Some of these stack 48 bits worth of data on separate layers, and the reliablity is up.Mechanical and Environmental IssuesFlash drives of any kind will lose data faster in warm environments. Most consumer USB dongles are not recommended for use over 40C or storage over 50C, but they’ll last longer in colder temperatures.The standard rating of a USB Type A connector is only 1500 plug/unplug cycles. This should never be an issue for any USB stick you’re using for longer term storage, as you’d like to use those drives just once. But it’s a consideration if you have a drive you’re using every day. And of course, that’s a rating — you could find your real-world life is more or less than the USB specification.Real World ExamplesYou don’t have to take my word for it, either: a drive, whether USB, SD, or SSD should offer longevity data in the drive’s data sheet. Or in their warranty. However, you’re probably not going to find it mentioned at all for most drives, because the manufacturers don’t warrant data retention. That should tell you a thing or two.Here’s a USB flash drive designed specifically for long life and long retention. This Swissbit drive is SLC, so only charge or no-charge on each memory cell, and it’s rated for 100,000 program/erase cycles. And when new, it’s rated for a 10 year data retention. When at the end of its useful life, though, it’s only rated for a year of data retention. So if you must insist on using USB flash drives for storing imporant things, use a new one and put it right on your shelf. Oh… by the way, the Swissbit 4G SFU24096E3BP2TO-I-DT-121-STD drive is only USB 2.0 and costs $97.58 in single quantities on Digi-Key.For about the same cash, I can buy a PNY Technologies P-FD512ELX-GE Elite-X Fit USB 3.1 flash drive… 128x the storage, and USB 3.1 performance as well. Only one problem: PNY has a one-year warranty for the operation of the device, and absolutely no data retention warranty. None. The JEDEC specifications for NAND flash memory require an SSD in power-off to retain data for one year, in consumer devices, and 3 months, in Enterprise devices, through the life of the device. So yeah, you can expect newer devices to retain data longer. There’s no requirement that the NAND flash memory in your USB stick meet full JEDEC specifications, but major brands most likely do. Those are not the numbers you want, but that is the fact.SanDisk warrants some of their actual USB flash drive hardware for a “Lifetime”, whatever that actually means (30 years in countries that don’t allow lifetime warranties). You would think that might have them offering a data longevity warranty or even an official guideline. Nope, they don’t.Kingston warrants more of their USB flash drive hardware for 5 years, but they don’t have a data retention warranty, either. In fact, they offer this guidance: “Kingston Flash Data Retention: Kingston Flash Storage Devices primarily use MLC/TLC Flash Memory. Data retention on Flash memory is dynamic since the amount of time the memory has been cycled affects data retention. Important information should always be backed up on other media for long-term safekeeping.”And sure, you can hear ancedotal stories of USB flash dongles from 10 or 15 years ago being completely good today. And sure, possible but not likely and absolutely not guaranteed other than on specialty memory like the Swissbit. And the memory chips made 15 years ago were almost certainly more reliable, being both SLC and much larger chips.So, Where to Archive?Well, I’d pick a hard drive over an SSD any day of the week. The magnetic storage on an HDD is extremely robust, likely to last 10–20 years or more, but do check your specific hardware’s data sheets. The problem is, you’re dependent on the mechanical bits of the drive tolerating that 10 year sit. You may be fine, or you may be subject to “stiction” problems, where lubricants get sticky over the years and prevent a normal spin-up.My long-term medium of choice is Blu-ray, with qualifications. The minimum you want is “HTL” Blu-ray. The original Blu-ray formulation starts out shiny, and the laser melts a bit of silicon and copper together, forming a less reflective material that’s stable against sunlight. Avoid “LTH” discs, which use dyes similar to those used on CD-R and DVD-R.Even better is M-Disc, a proprietary non-organic HTL disc using a material engineered specifically for longevity. The disc is even HTL for the DVD-R version, one reason it needs a special drive to burn it… regular CD-R and DVD-R is always LTH…. the laser is making the dye layer clear, allowing the reflection layer through. M-Disc is described as “glassy carbon”, it’s unaffected by oxygen — the enemy of the aluminum layer in a CD-R or DVD-R — and rated for 1,000 years life. Even if that’s an exaggeration, if that’s not effectively “forever” for me, then I’m certain all my old media will be stored in 0.001% of my positronic brain upgrade. But this also points out a universal truth — nothing is forever and under every circumstance. There’s no such thing as “waterproof”, you only have degrees of water resistance. There’s no such thing as “timeproof”, you only have degrees of time/entropy resistance.You can also consider managed archival… online storage. Storing things in the cloud, you will get the slight benefit of enterprise-level hardware, perhaps. But what you’re really getting is active data management. You’re paying that company to mind your data, replace drives (on a RAID, of course) before they fail, etc. I never would have considered this a year ago when I was on satellite internet at 12Mb/s and low data caps, but today I’m on a gigabit no data caps. So it’s an actual option for some.UPDATE: After I wrote this, I did self-examine my former stance on online backup. I was not a fan, because it was slow, expensive, and based on your faith in the company still being around when Godzilla stomps on your house. But I did some research and signed up for a trial backup with a cloud backup company, and then paid the annual low flat-fee. So we’ll see. This service has very little user interaction.Their main purpose is backing up media, not making an archive of your HDD, which is my main concern. So they don’t back up program installs. They automatically scanned 1,882,572 files worthy of backup, at 13,454,758 MB. They have so far backed up all but 25,522 files, but those files compries 10,288,725 MB of data. I started this three weeks ago, and I’m on gigabit fiber to the internet. So the throttling is probably intentional, and not unexpected. Nearly everything they’re achiving will never change at my end, so ones is enough.Now, of course, if Godzilla did stomp my house, I would not relish the idea of spending several months downloading my stuff. This company will provide all that data on 8GB hard drives… so two drives and I’m good. Not terribly expensive, particularly compared to my house and all my meat-space stuff. At some point, I’ll probably update this again.Rot and RedundancyNo matter what you do, you’re subject to data loss. The best archival medium is redundancy. When I store my photos on those pricey BDXL M-Discs, I write overlapped… so half of the last backup goes onto the next backup. Every photo is on at least two discs. And my RAID. And my backup HDD.I have recently added online backup, once I found a service without data limits. But even with a fast internet connection to the home, this can be a crazy slow process. I started about a week ago and it’s maybe 2TB archived out of around 13TB of data. If you’re paying a per-data fee, it gets expensive, fast.While SSDs can show data rot in a few years, HDDs and tape certainly can as well. I shot analog video in 1994 on high quality tape that was showing rot by 2008 (multiple playings on different 8mm decks got it all converted to digital). Some of the old CDs we made in the early 1990s are still good, some of the CDs and DVDs I made in the later 1990s and early 2000s are dead. Particularly for anything using organic dyes, both light and heat are your long-term enemies.Then there’s format rot. I backed up onto TR-4 tapes in the 1990s. It wouldn’t matter if the tape’s good if I can’t find a compatible drive. Or a PATA hard drive for that matter… you can probably still find a PATA interface, but your modern PC may not have one. One of the best reasons for CD/DVD/BD is the fact it’s a consumer format, not just a computer format… that’s the primary reason the discs stayed upward compatible over three decades and counting. But will that last? UHD Blu-ray is out, with 66GB and 100GB discs, based on the same tech used in BDXL, so that is a consumer format. But it’ll never be as popular as HD Blu-ray, which isn’t as popular as DVD. Will we have another consumer optical upgrade? But I digress…So archive often, on different media, and in different places. That’s the only way to prevent data loss for certain. And flash drives are cheap, but not archive-grade. If you must use them, back up redundantly.Read Morehttps://www.anandtech.com/show/9...Dave Haynie's answer to Is SD card a good idea for long term data storage?Dave Haynie's answer to If I keep files backed up on an external SSD, is it safe to assume that without damage to it, they'll last forever, are they safe there, permanently?

Well, this is the answer of your question.:-Vitamins That We Need For Flawless skinEat fruits like KIwi, papaya, guava , water melon etc. -Top 10 fruits For glowing skinVitamin K Containing Products are good to prevent dark circles.- Vitamin K :- A Perfect Solution For Dark CirclesWhat Is Vitamin E?Vitamin E, you must know by now, is a fat-soluble antioxidant. It is a major food component that can be derived from natural food like grains, seeds, fruits and vegetables or can be taken in form of tablets.What Are Vitamin E Benefits?There are many benefits, but the most widely known benefit of Vitamin E is the protection it provides against toxins present in the polluted air.Vitamin E also prevents the clotting of blood platelets.A healthy amount of Vitamin E intake will reduce the chances of coronary artery disorder, other heart diseases, and sun stroke.It aids in alleviating fatigue and strengthens capillary walls and nourishes cells.Vitamin E is known for its healing properties and that is one reason it is widely used as a skin and hair benefactor. The exact reason why we recommend it to you as we talk about skin care today.List Of Food With Vitamin ENature’s bounty has offered us with umpteen sources of Vitamin E and we are going to discuss all these, well, most of these with you today.1. AlmondsNot only does this delicious dry fruit make an interesting company with your regular cereal, kheer, and night milk, with its rich supply of healthy fats, protein, fiber, magnesium, and over 70% of vitamin E constituents, Almonds help to maintain lower blood sugar levels, cholesterol level and reduces blood pressure.Benefits for Skin (When taken in moderation)The nut help the skin fight damaging UV rays.They also improve complexion.Almond milk acts toward hydrating the skin and soften it.Benefits for HairAlong with magnesium, the dry fruit is a rich source of Vitamin D too. Deficiency of magnesium in the body leads to hair fall.Almond, when consumed orally or applied as oil on hair, keeps the scalp moisturized.Cuts down hair fallImproves the quality of hair2. Wheat GermThe name may sound a little off-beat, but let us explain. The embryo of the seed, Wheat germ is the reproductive part that is germinated and then grows into a plant. Wheat germ is often a by-product of mining, a lot like barn. But its benefits are in many.Percentage of Vitamin E in Almonds: Wheat germ contains 4.53 mg of vitamin E per 1 oz. Wheat germ oil provides even more vitamin E per serving, with just 1 tbsp. containing 20.3 mg. One tablespoon of wheat germ oil provides more than the recommended daily allowance of 15 mg of vitamin E.Benefits for SkinRegular usage of wheat germ provides your skin with a natural glow.Many skin problems like eczema, dry skin; psoriasis gets treated by applying wheat germ oil.The topical application loads your skin with Vitamin E that in turn helps soothing and repairs it while promoting skin cell formation.Benefits for HairIt contains an array of vitamins, in addition to Vitamin E.The oil easily gets absorbed by the hair roots benefiting it with all the nutrients, thus keeping the hair shiny and healthy.It aids in fast hair growth3. Sunflower SeedsWe don’t need to spend a lot of time here explaining that this is the seed of sunflower, but what we must understand is that it makes the list of top 10 foods rich in Vitamin E; copper being the next component along with phosphorus, thiamine, and selenium among others. Sunflower seeds are also a very healthy source of specific fatty acids.Percentage of Vitamin E in sunflower seeds: One cup of dried sunflower seeds provides us with a whopping 15.3 milligrams of vitamin E.Benefits for SkinSunflower seeds contain copper which is utilized by our body to produce melanin; this pigment is responsible for giving our skin its color.Also, the tiny particles of this protein pigment save our skin from the damage caused by ultraviolet radiation.The Vitamin E in sunflower seed oil also protects the skin from oxidative damage and support vigorous skin growth.Benefits for HairSunflower seeds are enriched with natural goodness that is a must for hair growth.You may munch on a handful of sunflower seeds every day so it keeps your hair lustrous.Regular consumption will gradually show a decrease in split ends of hair.4. Palm OilThis is basically a vegetable oil derived from the palm fruit, mainly primarily the African oil palm Elaeis guineensis. It’s interesting to note that it has an extensive usage in our regular lives and we find it almost in everything. Not only can we consume it orally, but Palm oil is used in cosmetics, fuels and even cleaning products.Percentage of Vitamin E in palm oil: The distribution of vitamin E in palm oil is 30% tocopherols and 70% tocotrienols.Benefits for SkinIts rich natural elements can heal sunburn, fade out stretch marks, and moisturize skin deeply.Those who suffer from dry skin conditions or have an excessively sensitive skin can certainly opt for palm oil.Benefits for HairThe carotenoids present in palm oil restores the basic properties of hair.Vitamin A added with E is absorbed by the scalp promptly and adds the much-needed shine to lifeless and dull hair.5. Olive OilThe oil extracted from little green fruits is rich in mono-saturated fats that lowers the risk of heart diseases, it also benefits insulin level and helps control blood sugar. A good quality Olive oil will also be loaded with many vitamins including E, that boosts the well-being of hair and skin.Percentage of Vitamin E in olive oil: Each tablespoon of olive oil provides 1.94 milligrams of vitamin E.Benefits for SkinIt is a general beauty booster that moisturizes deeply and scrubs out dead skin particles when added to exfoliators.It ensures that the pores don’t get clogged and you find your skin radiating health.Benefits for HairMassaging hair with olive oil once or twice every week will clean out flakes and limit its formation.When absorbed into the roots, olive oil encourages fast hair growth.6. Mustard GreensNot only does the herb have high content of proteins but is rich in antioxidants that detoxify your blood and liver too. It is packed with Phytonutrients and is high in fiber. Also doubles as a better source of bone-building vitamin B and immune-boosting vitamin C.Percentage of Vitamin E in Mustard Greens: One cup (140 grams) of cooked mustard greens contains 17% of Vitamin E in them.Benefits for SkinMustard green protects skin by building collagen in the skin with its high levels of vitamin CAlso prevents skin cancer and foster cell growth.Benefit for HairThe presence of signNow amount of vitamin E in mustard greens is excellent in taking care of hair too. It makes your strands healthy from the roots and provides it with renewed luster.7. HazelnutsThese, just like almonds, are one of the greatest sources of Vitamin E. Include hazelnut in your diet and be sure to get healthy skin, hair, and nails. Its high mineral content, like calcium, potassium, and magnesium has many health benefits, the major one being regulation of blood pressure.Percentage of Vitamin E in Hazelnuts: 1-ounce snack portion of hazelnuts provides 4.2 milligrams of vitamin E, or 20 percent of your daily value, making this nut very high in vitamins.Benefits for SkinHazelnuts delays aging signs on skin.Your skin will stay hydrated and protected from harmful UV raysYou will also notice a gradual reduction in acne.Benefits for HairIf you have colored your hair recently you know that you have stripped it off many nutrients, eat hazelnut daily to restore the lost luster.It will also endow your hair strands with an attractive brownish hue.Hazel nut oil acts as a great conditioner and treats dry scalp conditions.8. Pine NutsAnother known source of fatty acids, Pine nuts contains many energy boosting nutrients. This includes iron, monounsaturated fat, and protein. It has substantial amount magnesium that helps fight fatigue.Percentage of Vitamin E in Pine Nuts: Nuts are usually a good source of Vitamin E, and pine nuts have 63% of Vitamin E in them for one cup of nuts.Benefits for SkinIt’s an amazing quick snack item that delays skin aging, and nourishes it from within.The anti-inflammatory properties present are a blessing for super sensitive skin, not to mention its deep moisturizing properties.Benefits for HairIt prevents bacterial growth on the scalp and boosts the overall health of hair keeping it well-conditioned.Regular consumption will speed up hair growth.We know vegetables are not the food item most of you love to eat, but if you know the beauty benefits of these vegetables you will consider committing a felony to eat a bowl full of these greens.List Of Vegetables High In Vitamin E1. Spinach (Cooked)The leafy vegetable is low in fat content and even lower in cholesterol. It has a healthy extent of niacin and zinc and is rich in fiber, protein, thiamin, calcium, magnesium, copper, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamins A, C, E, and K.Percentage of Vitamin E in Spinach: A healthy green, as it’s called, spinach has about 3% of Vitamin E. Even 1 cup of spinach hardly is 30grams which is comparatively less.Benefits for SkinSpinach aids your bowl system and reduces acne formation.It takes out impurities from the skin leaving an enhanced complexion endowing your skin with a shield from UV rays.Benefits for HairThe superfood is comprised of multivitamins and essential minerals that are a must for fast hair growth.As mentioned, spinach is a good source of iron, the deficiency of which can cause hair loss.2. Swiss ChardDon’t worry if the name doesn’t ring a bell, for most people know the vegetable as perpetual spinach, silverbeet, spinach beet, mangold or crab beet. A bowl full of cooked Swiss chard would provide you with 716% of vitamin K needs, 53% of vitamin C, 214% of vitamin A, 29% of manganese, 38% of magnesium, and 17% of vitamin E.Percentage of Vitamin E in Swiss Chard: Swiss chard when boiled just enough to fit into one cup, it contains 22% of Vitamin E.Benefit for SkinIt makes the skin supple and flexible inducing it with clear radiance. It does away with impurities that lead to dullness in skin.Benefits for HairSwiss chard has a lot of biotins, the kind of vitamin that promotes hair growth and strengthens it from the roots.The vitamins A and C present in the leafy veggie assist the hair follicles in producing more sebum that keeps your hair skin bouncy.3. Turnip GreensI am sure I won’t be wrong if I say Turnips are world’s healthiest food. The veggie is well known for being effective in cancer prevention, and its high content of every possible vitamin known to mankind.Percentage of Vitamin E in Turnip Greens: A serving cup of turnip greens provides 18% of Vitamin E for consumption.Benefit for SkinRich in vitamin A and C, along with E, Turnips, or as we call them in India, Shalgam also have a considerable amount of copper and beta-carotene. It improves our complexion and helps our skin maintain a healthy radiance.Benefits for HairRegular intake of this vegetable improves the color of hair. The copper in Shalgam produces Melanin that gives the hair a rich color.The presence of rich antioxidants like vitamins C and E, lutein beta-carotene, and zeaxanthin looks after the overall health of hair.4. CollardsCollard greens supply a decent dose of fiber, protein, iron and calcium in addition to vitamin E. The leafy green vegetables have an impressive quantity of other essential vitamins and minerals also, and when met with the right recipe, collard greens can be delicious in addition to being nutritious.Percentage of Vitamin E in Collards: Collards are an excellent source of vitamins, although they are a little moderate on the Vitamin E side, containing just 11% of it in one cup collards.Benefits for SkinConsumption of collards helps skin fight aging, wrinkles and reduces dullness.Freckles and dark spots will also gradually fade out, leaving you with a clear complexion with revived elasticity.Benefit for HairLoaded with Vitamin E, iron and fiber that assist in hair growth, collards provide strength to the hair shaft to fight wear and tear and reduce split end formation, giving you a head full of thick silky hair.5. KaleThis low-calorie leafy veggie has high fiber content and absolutely no fat. A cup of kale has about 36 calories added to 5 grams of fiber. It is great for boosting digestion and improves bowel system. The many nutrients like folate, vitamins, magnesium present in its leafs look after our overall wellbeingPercentage of Vitamin E in Kale: Raw Kale almost has no sort of Vitamin E present in it. Being close to zero on the Vitamin E side, definitely not a choice for Vitamin E deficient bodies.Benefit for SkinWith loads of antioxidants that reduce wrinkles, slows down the aging process and prevents the prevention of free radical cells damaging your skin.Benefit for HairThe problem of hair breakage is easily solved and hair elasticity is maintained by regular intake of Kale.Hair grows thicker, shinier, and longer at a faster rate, and the scalp remains moisturized cutting off chances of flakes if you eat Kale regularly.6. AsparagusAsparagus is a recognized source of folate, fiber, vitamins A, C, E and K. It also has a considerable amount of chromium, a mineral that improves insulin to transport glucose from our bloodstream into cells.Percentage of Vitamin E in Asparagus : 180 grams of cooked Asparagus which constitutes of one cup contains around 18% of Vitamin E.Benefit for SkinThe green vegetable works greatly in treating acne, cleanses the skin, dries out the sores if applied directly. Eating it helps too.Benefit for HairAsparagus consumption will reduce hair fall like magic.7. BroccoliThe green vegetable a great source of pantothenic acid, dietary fiber, vitamin B6, manganese, vitamin E, vitamin B1, phosphorus, choline vitamin A, copper, and potassium.Percentage of Vitamin E in Broccoli: 4% of Vitamin E is present in 1 cup of Broccoli.Benefit for Skin – Broccoli is beneficial to skin in many ways, the Vitamin C in it stimulates collagen production and shields the skin membrane from UV rays.Benefit for Hair – With its essential vital nutrients like Vitamin A, vitamin B5, vitamin B12, Vitamin C, niacin, and sulfur Broccoli strengthens the hair root, promotes hair growth, makes hair smooth and eliminates hair fizz.8. Sweet PotatoThese are an amazing source of vitamin A, vitamin B6, vitamin B1, vitamin B2 and vitamin C. Additionally, you will also find minerals like copper, manganese, potassium, niacin, and phosphorus.Percentage of Vitamin E in Sweet Potato: Sweet Potatoes are low in sodium and cholesterol. While the Vitamin E content in it stands at 7% for 1 cup of sweet potatoes.Benefits for SkinBoiled potato is packed with nutrients that improve skin’s texture and clears complexion.The water you boiled the sweet potatoes in can be used to wash your face and it will deep cleanse your pores and soothe irritation.Benefits for HairSweet potatoes offer shine to hair and treats dryness due to climatic changes.It promotes hair growth and brings lifeless hair to life.9. TomatoesThis delicious vegetable has a number of nutrients and vitamins, that can be listed as vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin K, and Vitamin E added to all the folate and thiamin.Percentage of Vitamin E in Tomatoes: Being high in calories that come mainly from the sugars present in tomatoes, they have 4% of Vitamin E in them.Benefit for SkinTomatoes open pores, and get your skin glowing.It delays aging of the skin and acts as a natural sunscreen.Interestingly tomato juice is a perfect astringent too.Benefit for HairWith its loads of vitamins, tomato juice, when eaten or applied to dull hair, brings back luster and removes dandruff.These were nine veggies with the maximum amount of Vitamin E. Now let’s talk about fruits with vitamin E.List Of Fruits High In Vitamin E1. AvocadoAlso known as butter fruit, avocado is the only fruit with a substantial amount of healthy monounsaturated fatty acids. Avocado is a nutrient-dense fruit and contains nearly 20 vitamins, a lot of vitamin E along with loads of minerals.Benefits for SkinThe fruit is a storehouse for skin benefiting nutrients. It moisturizes your skin and gives you a natural shine.The unreal amount of antioxidants treat wrinkles and prevents their formation.Benefits for HairJust like skin, avocado keeps your scalp moisturized tooIt soothes irritation and promotes the growth of long, strong and healthy hair.2. KiwifruitIt is packed with vitamin C, vitamin K, and vitamin E along with potassium. A healthy amount of antioxidants and fiber are also present in it. Goes without mentioning that it is one of the most delicious fruits on the planet.Benefit for SkinKiwifruit is a rich source of vitamin E, an important antioxidant that helps you achieve radiant skin and fights the formation of free radicals that dulls the appearance of it.Benefit for hairMinerals like phosphorus, magnesium, and zinc in Kiwi add with its large proportions of Vitamin E stimulates blood circulation leading to accelerated hair growth.3. BlackberriesBlackberries are rich in Vitamin E, A and C. The black delicious fruit also provides the highest amount of antioxidants that work wonders for the betterment of your overall health.Benefits for SkinGiven that the fruit is so highly rich in Vitamin A, C and E the consumption it is only natural and expected it will get your skin glowing and brighten your complexion.Benefit for HairHigh antioxidant component keeps the health of the hair in place. It facilitates hair growth and prevents premature graying.4. MangoesThis yummilicious fruit is what we swear by in the summers, but you would be glad to know that it has many gifts for your hair and skin. Point to note, the antioxidant compounds in the fruit can prevent cancer to a greater extent.Benefit for SkinAvailable in bounty during summers, mango protects the skin from photochemical reactions, prevents skin cancer and protects from the damage caused by UV rays.Benefit for HairHair is happy when you devour a mango for it promotes collagen formationKeeps the scalp nourished and treats dandruff.5. PeachesNot only are peaches an amazing source of Vitamin E, they are rich in copper, Zinc, phosphorous and many other minerals that benefit the body completely.Benefits for skinEat loads of peach for peach-like complexion for the copper present in it enriches complexionVitamin E and C content will make the skin glow with healtBenefits for HairWith its antioxidants, peaches will certainly make your hair silkyIt protects your scalp from any bacterial formation.6. ApricotsNot only Vitamin E but Apricots are a great source of dietary fibers. It helps digestion by breaking down fatty acids faster.Benefits for SkinIt moisturizes normal to oily skin perfectlyThe juice of it can be applied on the face as a serum that rejuvenates tired skin.Benefit for hairThe best gift of nature that can help us repair the damage that we do to our hair by chemically treating it – colors, straightening, perming. It is also a great snack that would treat a flaky scalp.7. RaspberriesNot only are these pretty looking berries rich in vitamin E, but also have a higher concentration of ellagic acid that prevents cancer. They also have the below beauty benefits.Benefits for SkinRaspberry juice erases wrinkle like magic, and protects the skin from harmful sun’s rays.The juice, if applied directly to your skin, will repair sun tan.Benefit for HairRaspberries boats a large amount of folic acid that induces hair growth and makes it glossier.8. GuavasThe sweet smelling fruit is a powerhouse of nutrients. The Extraordinary concentration of Vitamin C and E, beneficial antioxidants and lycopene makes it a perfect beauty fruit.Benefits for SkinBy now you must have known that food items rich in copper will yield great results for your complexion, guava is one of them.Also, the rich amount of vitamin E and C keep the skin hydrated.Benefits for HairEating guavas regularly will delay graying of hair.Hydrated roots will hold the hair sturdily.9. PapayaBounty with papain, antioxidants and vitamin A, B-complex, C, and E, papaya makes for the preferred breakfast food of celebrities. Let’s see why:Benefits for SkinIt brightens complexion and keeps skin well-hydrated.Dark spots and pimples are also cured by regular consumption of papaya or by applying it topically.Benefit for HairA papaya hair mask is the best hair mask you can gift to your manes. With every application, it will turn silkier.10. MulberriesPacked with essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals, this rare berry type helps prevent many diseases and cures a number of health issues.Benefit for skinFor its unreal antioxidants, Mulberry has been deemed as the fruit for anti-aging, the ones that lead you to the youthful and wrinkle-free skin.Benefits for hairHair fall count will reduce miraculously if you consume mulberry juice regularly.It encourages new hair growth and the old ones are boosted with longer life.Vitamin E can never be too much for the human body – or is that right? Well, as the old saying goes, too much of anything is bad.What Are The Side Effects Of Vitamin E?Vitamin E, if consumed more than the need of your body, will cause dizziness, headache, and changes in vision.You may also experience a light-headed feeling and overdose of vitamin E may lead to passing out too.There have been observed cases of diarrhea and stomach cramps too if the intake of vitamin E is more than required.

There are many ways in which a thing can be true, and not all of them are equal.While ProPublica’s story is mostly true in a narrow sense, it’s also concerningly simplistic. It gives us a taste of the truth — enough to make us drunk with outrage. But what it doesn’t do is arm the reader to participate in the sort of discussion that might solve the real problems underneath.Compounding this, the dozens of clickshare re-writes of ProPublica’s story by other outlets have almost all been worse. What the ProPublica version lacked in breadth, the rest lack in depth (and also breadth).While we’re going to going to tackle those themes a bit more while unpacking the main elements of the tax story itself, just two bits of house-cleaning first:My main interest here is bias. Not political bias, mind you. More in the vein of what Jon Stewart suggested was the default bias of all mainstream media: “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness”.Some angles of this story get into murky territory, especially as it concerns legal recourse. I’ve done my best to be transparent about where I’m sure and where I’m speculating. As ever, I offer financial rewards for all corrections and meaningful improvements.Ok, on we go.Historical ContextBack in 1998, Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, which, among other things, spelled out one notable big-letter goal: “having 80% of Federal tax and information returns filed electronically by the year 2007”.Fast forward to 2002. The Bush II administration announced a new policy related to achieving that 80% goal: the creation of Free File Inc. (hereafter FFI) as part of the Free File Program (FFP).The basics:FFI is a consortium of a dozen major tax-prep companies.FFP is a deal that FFI made with the IRS wherein they would create software that allowed the bottom 60% (now 70%) of US earners to file their taxes electronically for free (no cost to the IRS or the filer).In exchange, the FFI demanded a non-compete agreement from the IRS. For as long as FFI was supplying these freebie filing options, the IRS couldn’t go and create their own.The FFP wasn’t law. Just a department policy predicated on a renewable contract between the IRS and the FFI. (This contract is referred to as a “memo of understanding”, or MOU.)Now, there are many ways of parsing this. On the one hand, free electronic filing for 60% of taxpayers was a win. Plus the government didn’t have to bother with creating this software from scratch. On the other hand, FFI members had motivations beyond charity and civic pride. In exchange for their “donation”, they got to ensure the IRS wouldn’t cut their revenue streams by creating a better option of their own. (They knew that most filers would end up buying a paid product regardless of free options, which is something we’ll get to.)All said though, this being a negotiated contract meant it was mostly a win-win. The IRS got to focus elsewhere, and taxpayers got something useful. And in the event that the deal no longer made sense, the IRS was free to either renegotiate or try something new.What Happened This WeekThe House passed the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 this past Tuesday. Section 1102 of said bill began with this clause:The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s delegate, shall continue to operate the IRS Free File Program as established by the Internal Revenue Service and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 67247), including any subsequent agreements and governing rules established pursuant thereto.The force of this is pretty simple: the FFP (and the MOU underlying it) would graduate from department policy to federal law.But before we get into the implications of that, I want to contrast the above with a clause from a previous (unpassed) bill:The Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, may not establish, develop, sponsor, acquire, or make available individual income tax preparation software or electronic filing services that are offered under the IRS Free File program, except through the IRS Free File program, the Internal Revenue Service’s Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax Counseling for the Elderly, and volunteer income tax assistance (VITA) programs.Note the difference: in this second version, the non-compete aspect would have been part of the federal legislation itself (as opposed to it being a clause in an MOU referenced by the law). It also would have limited the IRS from sponsoring private partners outside the confines of the FFP. This is the kind of bill that lobbyists really wanted. What they got this week was a distinctly lesser win.Anyway, as for the MOU in question (now in its 8th version, having been renewed late last year), there are a few clauses in play here:In recognition of this commitment [of FFI members to offer free filing software to the bottom 70% of earners], the federal government has pledged to not enter the tax preparation software and e-filing services marketplace.But while this exchange is a classic quid pro quo, this isn’t to say the deal is entirely equal.Any unilateral changes imposed by the U.S. government on FFI whether by statute, regulation, or administrative action will result in an immediate re-evaluation of the decision to continue FFI, and could result in an immediate suspension of free services upon the decision of each Member.This is where things get really interesting, and where FFI lobbyists clearly earned their money. The new bill, while less onerous than previous attempts at codifying the MOU, does include one slippery sentence: it mandates that the government “shall continue to operate” the FFP.Here’s why this matters: if the IRS decides to revise the MOU to remove the non-compete angle, the FFI would have a powerful incentive to exercise the above clause. The presumption is that they’d then argue something to the effect of “the government’s unilateral decision forced our hand, and now the FFP is basically dead, and the law says that the government needs to keep the FFP alive”. (I’m not sure how successful this argument might be, but it certainly seems that the legislation was crafted to allow the FFI to make it.)But there’s one more thing from that MOU that represents a curveball:Should the IRS commit funding to offer Services for free to taxpayers, the IRS shall notify FFI immediately.This clause has been in the MOU since the first draft. It basically allows the FFI to stop offering the free services if the IRS begins their own. But this is somewhat in tension with the unilateral changes bit. If the IRS exercises an option that’s always been part of the MOU, does that weaken a potential claim by the FFI?(To be clear, I don’t know how this would play out in court. Different judges could rule differently — though there are surely precedents I’m unaware of that might make certain outcomes more or less likely. What is clear though is that there would be non-trivial litigation risk for the IRS if they were to drop the non-compete and the FFI were to object.)Anyway, there’s more to the MOU that we need to look at, but I want to set up that discussion by reviewing a few other things first.There Must Be A Better Way!The crux of this week’s commentary has mostly been “man, it would be great if the US could be like other countries and have an option where the IRS just sends out a pre-filled postcard, and all we need to do is verify and sign it”.The easy narrative here is that this system doesn’t exist solely because of the FFP (i.e., the companies that make up the FFI don’t want to lose revenues, and have thus thrown lots of lobbying dollars at Congress to keep the FFP in place, and that’s why we can’t have nice things).While there are other problems with this narrative, I think it’s worth getting into a fuller list of cautions that past studies have raised as it concerns the US pursuing such a program (pulling mostly from this 1996 GAO report, though leaving out all the arguments that have been obviated by tech advances):At the time, 55% of filers would have needed to make amendments to any pre-filled form the IRS could have come up with (or else would have needed to just do their own filing from scratch). While that number would be lower now, the complexities of US tax regimes (at both federal and state levels) combined with the backwater efficiency of most inter-governmental data-sharing systems would keep this number from being quite as low as that of most other developed countries.Tax prep companies pay lots of tax on their profits, and they employ lots of people who pay lots of tax on their wages. If you eliminate those jobs, the government takes in less money. Plus governments have to pay benefits to unemployed people until they find new work.Lots of US citizens don’t trust the IRS, which could mean that lots of pre-filled forms would be challenged, thus increasing the overall workload. In contrast, the selling point of “we’re going to help you pay the fewest dollars to the big bad government” is compelling to lots of Americans, and often solicits more trust (even if it shouldn’t).There was a fear at the time that people would be less likely to declare side income if their filing was pre-filled (I’m sure there’s relevant data from other countries who use this system — would love a link if any reader happens to know of quality research here).Employers are really bad a sending on forms in a timely way, making it hard for the IRS to gain the needed data to make correct calculations while also maintaining their current tax calendar.We can add two more things to this list:The IRS is intentionally under-funded (down nearly 20% this decade, despite a host of new responsibilities). It’s hard to imagine either party giving them loads of money to institute new programs in the current climate, whatever their potential benefit. It’s just an electoral nightmare. Lobbyists and messaging consultants have done too effective a job at poisoning that particular well.US government agencies are generally bad at managing software projects. It isn’t at all clear that they’d get further developing their own system vs. forcing the FFI members to improve their existing offerings.Now, those arguments vary in power. I’m skeptical that even taken together they mean that the IRS shouldn’t try a large-scale pilot. But the last two are definitely non-trivial. Giving the IRS a larger budget is widely considered a non-starter, and changing political perception there would be a massive undertaking. But if you had to get them more money for either oversight or building their own program, oversight would be a whole lot cheaper, and may have a higher ROI.Bad Faith EffortsYou might be wondering: if the FFP has been around since 2002, why do only ~3 million people a year use it? (A number that’s been trending downward.)There are a handful of high-level answers here:Per the MOU (4.35), it’s actually the IRS’s responsibility to market the FFP. Doing this well would require them having a budget to do so (and them having the institutional competency to use that money well).Also per the MOU (4.15.4), FFI members are responsible to advertise the free service from their “Free File Landing Page”. They are not responsible to make this landing page easily accessible. In most cases, said pages are only signNowable via the IRS’ little-known FFP program page.Most of the FFI’s FFP offerings suck (on purpose). The IRS has the right of review, but doesn’t use it very effectively. (As the FFI largely sees improving these offerings to be contrary to their financial interests, they’re only going to go as far as they’re pushed.)Some FFP offerings suck less, but the FFI is dominated by Intuit (TurboTax) and H&R Block (i.e., the two players most opposed to improvements).Free options aren’t generally good at helping you find all eligible deductions, leading most filers to opt for a paid service they perceive to be better at that.Filing taxes normally via TurboTax or a local outfit isn’t all that hard or expensive, and most taxpayers just aren’t bothered enough to seek an alternate solution.Of those factors, I want to focus on 3 and 4. To illustrate what bad faith means here, let’s look at how TurboTax goes about fulfilling their FFP obligations.Now, you might be thinking “well, that’s no so bad at all! — after all, the free option is clearly marked in an attractive way”.But then you click on that “simple tax returns” subheader and you’re greeted with a curious disclaimer:Hmm. Now why would these things not be covered? The obvious answer would be that artificial restrictions are useful for pushing customers to premium options. Pretty normal practice. But doesn’t the MOU forbid this type of upselling on FFP offerings?Trick question! The above offering has nothing to do with the FFP.TurboTax does have an FFP option, which does cover all those situations from the disclaimer. It’s just hidden. The only way you’d ever find it is if you came in via a link from the IRS’ FFP program page. The fact that the two offerings share a confusingly similar name (“Free Edition” vs. “Free File”) is, ahem, a bit of poor luck. They say it isn’t their fault if consumers are confused, as it isn’t their job to educate them.And this is hardly the only kind of spirit-violating nonsense that FFI folks have gotten up to. Remember how the MOU demanded that the lowest 70% of earners all be given free options? Well, the MOU didn’t demand that each provider meet that goal individually — just collectively. The natural consequence? Each FFI provider has seemingly arbitrary restrictions on location and age/income ranges. While you’re guaranteed (if under the income cap) that one of them will work for you, the same one might not work for your sibling or next-door neighbor. It may not even work for you two years in a row! It’s complicated enough that the IRS had to develop a lookup tool that requires you to complete a survey to match you with the right offering. Friction, friction, friction.Why Governments Suck, Part IIf you read through the MOU, you might find yourself surprised at some of the clauses.4.36.3 - IRS and FFI mutually agree to support and promote Free File as an “Innovation Lab” to test, pilot, and offer capabilities to simplify taxpayer compliance, such as data importation offered by industry as described herein, and such as IRS’s Application Programming Interface (API) projects […]Yep, you read that right: the FFI actually has a mandate to create the sort of tax-filing experience we all dream of. (There’s a whole section on this.) On the balance, the MOU is honestly pretty taxpayer-friendly. The problem isn’t here — it’s in the fact that the US government is terrible at private-sector oversight, rendering most of these deals somewhere between one-sided and meaningless.This is why all those battles that Roger and Paul and Grover and Newt and Ralph fought in the 80s/90s mattered. They weren’t conservatives fighting against the encroachment of progressive values or the nanny-state. They were power-brokers looking to get paid by corporations keen to reduce oversight to something of a farce. (And they definitely had their allies on the left in this effort.) Now, sure, reasonable people can disagree on how much oversight the market needs. That’s why we have a democratic system that necessitates healthy compromises. Good legislation should certainly aim for balance, and so on. But what those men did was use the “government vs. markets” debate, not to shift the compromise, but to obscure what they were really doing: making sure that whatever compromises Congress signNowed would be toothless anyhow.The reality here is that the MOU itself is largely fine, as is the new law. The litigation risk of backing out of the non-compete, however severe, is mostly a red herring. The IRS is still free to help other competitors (like CreditKarma) enhance their free services, and there’s no reason that FFI offerings couldn’t be made to be as good or better than whatever the IRS could come up with themselves. That the current options suck isn’t about who is building the software. It’s about the IRS having no real resources to either enforce/sweeten the MOU or market the FFP.And that, in turn, is a problem with public perception. The US can easily afford to properly fund the IRS (it would actually be a net savings on a longer timeline). But elected representatives are terrified of trying, largely thanks to the efforts of the Grovers of this world — along with a little help from the media.Why Governments Suck, Part IIIt isn’t a new observation that good governance requires an informed public. This has been a maxim since the first Greek experiments with democracy. Literacy and engagement are the central pillars of any nation worth living in.So why is the press doing such a poor job informing the public in a way likely to arm them with the data and context required to engage well?Let’s start with the ProPublica piece that set off this whole dialogue:Congress Is About to Ban the Government From Offering Free Online Tax Filing. Thank TurboTaxSetting aside the misleading implications of the headline as worded, let’s look at the article’s first paragraph:Just in time for Tax Day, the for-profit tax preparation industry is about to realize one of its long-sought goals. Congressional Democrats and Republicans are moving to permanently bar the IRS from creating a free electronic tax filing system.Note those words: “permanently bar”.Remember that Stewart line from the beginning about “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness”? Keep that in mind as you parse what exactly “permanently bar” might mean. It isn’t a term of art. Congress has no power to ban anything forever. That’s not how the law works. The closest we could get is a constitutional amendment, but even those can be re-written and re-interpreted. Laws, by their nature, are transitory things.The real focus of this new legislation isn’t permanence, but difficulty. The FFI hardly expects the status quo to last another 17 years, much less indefinitely. They just expect that litigation risk (and two-branch support) will act as a speed bump on change. Their monopoly is still written in pencil, but the erasers are now just that little bit extra harder to come by, which makes their clients happy.Now, you might object that I’m being over-sensitive to the meaning of words here, and that ProPublica’s take wasn’t all that bad. And this is where we have to get a little philosophical. Some believe that every journalist’s responsibility is something to the effect of “collect some facts, avoid outright mistakes, and work with an editor to make your story marketable”. To me, this is the equivalent of requiring them to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth” while leaving out the bit about “the whole truth” as either unimportant or impractical. The story that ProPublica told was true, but it agitated more than it informed. The FFI likely read it and said “well, this will make this week suck, but the outrage isn’t well-directed to any end that represents a real obstacle to us, so, hey, whatever”.Look, good journalism is hard. I get that. And there’s certainly value to communicating key facts quickly. Not every news bulletin can wait on an exhaustive search for whatever we might consider a realist approximation of “the whole truth”. But it seems undeniable to me that the current model is broken. And this is nowhere more evident than in how primary reporting is reprocessed by secondary publishers in their quest for clickshare.Say you thought “permanently bar” was wrong but not very wrong. How do you feel about the first sentence of TechCrunch’s repackage?Thanks to pressure from tax preparation industry, Congress is getting ready to ban the IRS from ever building a free electronic tax filing system.Does TechCrunch say “ever” here if ProPublica didn’t use “permanently” first? If I was a casual reader, I’d assume that “ever” implied some real finality, like a door being shut that couldn’t be re-opened. (Where the reality here is that this particular door can be sprung with precisely the same force with which it was closed.)In the same vein, consider this follow-on by Popular Mechanics:Filing Your Taxes Could Be Way Easier, But Congress and Tax Companies Are Conniving To Make Sure It Stays TerribleConniving! Reminds me of that old saw about how one shouldn’t ascribe to malice what’s better explained by incompetence (or, in this case, inadequate resources).Anyway, as to the article itself:Tucked away in section 1102 of the bill, which relates to the IRS Free File Program that ensures fee-free filing for people under a certain income threshold, is language that subtly prevents the IRS for developing its own system by mandating that the agency continue to work with the private sector in this endeavor. In other words, the legislation locks us all into the status quo.I credit ProPublica with at least this: however narrow their perspective was, at least they did their homework. Their bias was more toward sensationalism and conflict than laziness. Popular Mechanics (and dozens of others) went for the full trifecta, in a much more brazen way.As a non-exhaustive list of problems here:While, yes, filing your taxes could be “way easier”, shifting the software burden to the IRS would be no guarantee of making this so.Section 1102 was the 3rd of 47 sections. If their goal was to hide it in the stack, the crafters did a poor job.There’s a deep confusion here between the bill and the MOU.The actual non-compete language is the opposite of subtle.This is like the game of Telephone. Most secondary publishers do near-zero research and just repackage the primary article, leaving the signal to degrade with each step.And then we have Twitter.Who says there is no common ground in politics?Democrats and Republicans in the House just unanimously passed a bill that makes it illegal for the IRS to create a system to let Americans file their taxes for free online— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 10, 2019 This system already exists! It’s called the FFP. That the IRS can’t create their own competing system to the one they already manage is a much narrower issue.(Also, for the record, passing a bill by acclimation isn’t the same as passing one via a unanimous vote.)It's hard to find a clearer example of Congress sabotaging the public good than a bill -- lobbied for by TurboTax -- prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from developing a free online system for filing your taxes.https://t.co/4HuIZc9ZKO— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) April 10, 2019 Ditto to above. This system already exists, and was developed under the auspice of the IRS.Also, the linked NYT piece (from their editorial board) includes this gem: “Instead of barring the I.R.S. from making April a little less miserable, why isn’t Congress requiring the I.R.S. to create a free tax filing website?”Umm, because the IRS already mandated the creation of several such websites? The assumption that the IRS would create a better one on their own is plausible, but (really) far from certain.Two facts:1. H&R Block and the makers of TurboTax spent $6.6 million lobbying last year. They want to ban the IRS from offering its own free, simple tax filing service.2. Congress is about to pass a law doing exactly that. https://t.co/giatnNh5mD— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) April 9, 2019 The IRS isn’t getting “banned” from anything. They voluntarily signed a non-compete 17 years ago, which they renewed less than six months ago. (And this is from a ProPublica editor!)The extent to which all Americans suffer an annual cost in time and money to protect the monopolies of TurboTax and H&R Block is astounding. Is there any issue where Congress is more out of step with citizen desires? https://t.co/GIRijGpS9Y— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) April 9, 2019 Like, I get the desire for simpler taxes. But is $40 and 15 minutes really “suffering”? (And, again, for the lowest 70% of earners, they don’t even have to shell out the $40 if they don’t want to. Though I guess you could say that using existing FFP sites is a form of suffering, if in an excessively first-world sense.)Congress can’t muster the political will to eliminate the carried interest tax break for private equity titans, but it can get together to prevent free tax preparation for others: https://t.co/3pEfW8EPnF— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) April 10, 2019 No free preparation! Except for 70% of you! And a handful of other special classes!Anyway, I could go on. But the point is that if the goal is to get voters to hold politicians accountable, it would certainly help if the voters knew what was happening, and why, and where the real problems are.It’s difficult to see how all the current coverage supports such a cause.More Adventures in Water-MuddyingConsider this quote (from the original ProPublica piece, but re-used in several secondary articles):“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.This is, um, pretty hyperbolic. Is there any justification for this? Does it aid clarity? Or does it just lend to the ever-marketable dynamics of sensationalism and conflict?Also consider the irreconcilable set of quotes in ProPublica’s sequel (published after lawmakers reacted to the first one).“The IRS chief counsel confirmed to his office that the Taxpayer First Act does not bar the agency from implementing a direct-file program.”“My staff pushed back on a long-standing policy that blocks the IRS from competing with private tax preparation companies […]”“Senate Republicans fit in some bitter pills and some problematic provisions,” said [Rep Katie Hill], who supported the bill as a whole, speaking on the House floor. “One of these is a piece that came to my attention today — which the corporate tax lobby has spent years and millions of dollars to get — which would bar the IRS from creating a simple, free filing system that would compete with their own.”I find this stuff infuriating, on three levels:Those who want to get quoted have biases and motives. Readers aren’t equipped to unpack those. Journalists need to do more than just “report the controversy”. Maybe that works for an AP news bulletin where speed is of the essence. But who is doing the work of coming in after and deconstructing for the reader why each party might have said what, and how their statements relate to their bios?Far too many journalists rely on services like HARO, where the experts are unknowns who respond to a call for a quote (vs. people with whom the journalist has an established relationship based on a keen understanding of competencies and incentives and likely spin). I know personally how low the bar is to getting quoted via HARO. I was never asked once to verify my identity or defend my position. What I said was just copied-and-pasted into a piece on the strength of a one-sentence self-supplied credential and my email address.Just because a politician has a quote doesn’t mean you should print it. It’s pretty clear that most who’ve commented on this legislation so far had/have (at best) a vague sense of what it contains, much less all the MOUs and external docs referenced in the bill. This isn’t uncommon. Only so many politicians have the right staff (and even then there are just hard limits on scope and priorities). Journalists ought to push back more to ensure that they aren’t just printing “um, I don’t reaaally know, but here’s my strong opinion that I’m told will play well to my base” quotes (or at least journalists need to carefully qualify those quotes when printing them).The Path ForwardI’ve written a lot over the past year about the failures of modern journalism — especially the hot-take/rapid-response/clickshare machine. There are things we can do to fix it, including some simple adjustments that could go a long way.In the absence of those changes, corporations like Intuit and H&R Block are going to have a field day. Their lobbyists will do what they’re paid very well to do, and our selective and ever-moving outrage will do nothing to solve the underlying problems. The MOU, whether law or policy, will continue to be enforced so poorly as to be one-sided, and tax innovation will be forever three or five years away.And so on and so on we’ll go, never to actually get anywhere, until we eventually decide that enough is enough, that the current model belongs in the dustbin of history, and that the time to make these changes is now.Note #1: I’m generally a fan of ProPublica. I thought their rundown last year was excellent, which has been true of a lot of their past coverage on this issue. I can’t really account for why this one missed the mark in relative terms.Note #2: An open question for any lawyer reading: could taxpayers sue the IRS for failing to meet the requirements set out in section 4.35 of the MOU (a promise to make “consistent, good faith efforts” to market the FFP)?

The only large-scale naval battles involving multiple major warships on both sides were those between Britain and Germany. However, that doesn't mean that other naval powers were inactive.In the Baltic, the Imperial Russian Navy had four dreadnoughts based at Reval (modern Tallinn, in Estonia), along with a collection of older ships. The German Baltic Fleet was small, but the High Seas Fleet based at Wilhelmshaven on the North Sea could quickly move through the Kiel Canal to the Baltic if necessary. With 15 German dreadnoughts available at the outbreak of war, there was no way the Imperial ...

Mine is quite different.So I'm in 7th grade. Just the average guy with no friends. Constantly bullied. Average build. We had assembly every morning. One day during assembly I noticed her for the first time. I have been seeing her here and there for a long time but, I really noticed her that day. I really remember the stare she gave me. Cold. I quickly turned away. This kept going for sometime. The stares kept getting colder. Sometimes she didn't even look at me.So I studied at Bhavans Vidya Mandir (some reading this can get a fair idea of the school and the assembly culture).After a couple of weeks I did find out her name and class. She was in 7A (I was in 7C). There was no way I could even talk to her since divisions don't interact mostly with each other. But fortunately that year my school introduced a system called Club Activity period (where students interact between divisions on various projects). I was hoping to see her during that class (Classes usually last 40mins per period and trust me that's not a lot of time). But the universe wasn't kind enough. She was in an entirely different classroom. The silver lining was that she had to pass my classroom every time she had to use the washroom. (God just wasn't planning to end this there and then.) One fine day, during Club activity class one of the bullies came next to me and started acting all friendly. Me being new to this was excited to talk to him this way. Probably made me feel wanted. We started talking about girlfriends (sounds cheesy now but boy was I excited at that time, almost like I made a bff). And he told me how he likes this girl from his class "Anjana." I knew her. She was in my school bus. So I told him where her house was etc etc. Now after all this, he wanted to know what's the name of my girlfriend. As I said I don't have one, he felt that he was used in someway by me and started getting all restless. And there I go. I said her name. (The girl from the assembly.) He congratulated me for the fine selection and the bell rang. ---- Thank god. That was more demanding than a math test. Next period was PT (physical training: where we ran behind a ball randomly kicking it whenever we got a chance).After an exhausting half an hour of football my running around was interrupted by one of my classmate. He told me that he saw my crush crying in one of the class and that the bully had told her everything I said to him. I was numb. Next period was Math. Even though the weather was cold I was sweating like crazy. I was counting minutes during the math class. But was interrupted by a senior who told me that one of the teachers wanted to meet me urgently. I can recollect his words "I think you're in trouble. Parvathy miss is calling you for something." I'm dead. That's the only words that were running through my mind. Went to the staff room and got an ear full from the teacher and lectures on how children get spoiled at this age and what not. I didn't see her for a couple of days. Year end exams were approaching and that too got over + 2 months of vacation. First day of 8th standard. As soon as I boarded the bus she was there in the bus. Shocked. Because that's not her bus route. Quickly I dashed to the end of the bus. Heartbeat felt like its gonna come out of my chest. Just sat there looking outside the bus for a few minutes but then that feeling kept coming to me that "I have to look at her," "this might be the best and the only chance" ..Right when I looked at her she looked at me. "Was she looking at me even before I did?" Yes. Every min she was staring. This went on for days. One day she smiled. I didn't. Kept looking out of the bus.One day she winked. Yes. You read that right. I thought she was mocking me. I ignored. Couple more days went like this. One day after school I was watching my favorite cartoon (Swat Kats) and the phone rang. I usually don't pick up landline calls. As usual my mom picked it up. She handed over the phone to me saying that some girl is calling. Confused I picked up the phone. My mom was right next to the phone with the same expression as me. Confused. As soon as I took the phone, from the other end she said "Sid I love you, see you in school tomorrow." I replied "Okay, I'll bring it" and slammed the phone. Still holding my heavily blused face. Awkward silence followed. I didn't go to the class the next few days. Pretended to be sick. I told this to a couple of classmates and they told me to give her a card. (Archie's craze was just beginning) Like they said I gave her a card during break time and she tore it to pieces right in front of the class. I was angry. She was just pretending to like me? Was this all part of a plan? The whole school came to know that I sent her a letter and a card and even my classmates started to make fun of me. One day I told my class during Onam celebrations what exactly had happened and fortunately everyone was with me. We all planned something. Whenever she passed in front of my classroom all of us started coughing as a plan to mock her. It was funny. Once during math period she passed in front of our class and the entire class started coughing loudly. Should have seen the look on the teacher's face. Priceless. A sort of class rivalry happened between 8A and 8C. When we had PT, the guys from her class came and tore all our charts. We did the same. Imagine this. A small crush and some stupidity = recipe for a war. That's all I can remember. 9 years after that we added each other on Facebook and shared our number. She told me that she actually liked me and that the letter I gave her was embarrassing because I did it in front of her friend. We had a good laugh. ~

YES, THOUSANDS. I am surprised by so many answers that are misinformed about how many prominent scientists doubt the alarmist view of climate change. Alan McIntire’s answer is a good start with one Nobel Laureate, but there are 60 more Nobel scientists unconvinced of the unproven hypothesis denying that solar and natural variability drives the climate. Try to find even one Nobel believer anything like the outspoken Dr. Ivar Gieaver???Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever brilliantly destroys the global warming (aka climate change) scientific consensus in his Laureate speech below.- Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent. Astrophysicist and meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, has a prediction success rate of roughly 85%...better than any of the "man made" climate change activists and proponents in the field of climate science. He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London....Piers Corbyn; There is No Such Thing as Man-Made Climate Change‘Never mind the heat, climate change is a hoax by gravy-train scientists'C02 has nothing to do with climate.The sun is best indicator of the weather.Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam: (includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD Aaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics) Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Al Pekarek, PhD Alan Moran, PhD Albrecht Glatzle, PhD Alex Robson, PhD Alister McFarquhar, PhD Amo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics) Andrei Illarionov, PhD Anthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics) Anthony R. Lupo, PhD Antonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists. Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics) Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhD Asmunn Moene, PhD Baruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Bjarne Andresen, PhD Boris Winterhalter, PhD Brian G Valentine, PhD Brian Pratt, PhD Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition Cesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology) Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics) Chris C. Borel, PhD Chris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology) Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Christopher Essex, PhD Cliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhD Daniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine) David Deming, PhD (Geophysics) David E. Wojick, PhD David Evans, PhD (EE) David Kear, PhD David R. Legates, PhD Dick Thoenes, PhD Don Aitkin, PhD Don J. Easterbrook, PhD Donald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics) Donald Parkes, PhD Douglas Leahey, PhD Dudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Frank Milne, PhD Fred Goldberg, PhD Fred Michel, PhD Freeman J. Dyson, PhD Garth W. Paltridge, PhD Gary D. Sharp, PhD Geoff L. Austin, PhD George E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy) Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Hans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics) Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD Harold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics) Harry N.A. Priem, PhD Heinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics) Hendrik Tennekes, PhD Henrik Svensmark, physicist Herbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Horst Malberg, PhD Howard Hayden, PhD I. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Ian D. Clark, PhD Ian Plimer, PhD Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics) James J. O’Brien, PhD Jean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Jennifer Marohasy, PhD Jerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Joel M. Kauffman, PhD Johan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) John Maunder, PhD John Nicol, PhD Jon Jenkins, PhD Joseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics) Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences Klaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology) L. Graham Smith, PhD Lee C. Gerhard, PhD Len Walker, PhD Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics) Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (Chemistry Lord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics) Lubos Motl, PhD Madhav Khandekar, PhD Manfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Marcel Leroux, PhD Marshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhD Nils-Axel Morner, PhD Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics) Pierre Lelong, Professor Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics) R. Timothy Patterson, PhD R. W. Gauldie, PhD R.G. Roper, PhD Raphael Wust, PhD Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Shave and Grooming Made Simple. D.Engr. Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Richard Mackey, PhD Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Richard S. Courtney, PhD Richard S. Lindzen, PhD Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD Robert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Robert M. Carter, PhD Robert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics) Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Ross McKitrick, PhD Roy W. Spencer, PhD S. Fred Singer, PhD Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist Harvard Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD Sherwood B. Idso, PhD Simon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics) Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine) Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics) Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD Stanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Stephan Wilksch, PhD Stewart Franks, PhD Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD Tadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Timothy F. Ball, PhD Tom V. Segalstad, PhD Torsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine) Vincent Gray, PhD Walter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries) Wibjorn Karlen, PhD Willem de Lange, PhD William Evans, PhD William Happer, physicist Princeton William J.R. Alexander, PhD William Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology William Lindqvist, PhD William N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry) Willie Soon, astrophysicist Harvard Yuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry) Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl Zeller Zichichi, PhDComment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li...THE DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO UNDERSTANDING ALARMISM FROM PSEUDO-SCIENCE… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.PREFACEI’ve studied climate both scientifically and academically for over forty years after spending eight years studying meteorology and observing the weather as an air crew and operations officer in the Canadian Air force. When I began the academic portion of my career, global cooling was the concern, but it was not a major social theme. During the 1980s the concern switched to global warming which he became a major political, social and economic issue.I watched my chosen discipline– climatology– get hijacked exploited in service of a political agenda, watched people who knew little or nothing enter the fray and watched scientists become involved for political and funding reasons-willing to corrupt the science , or, at least, ignore what was really going on. The tail is more than a sad story because it set climatology back 30 years and damaged the credibility of science in general.It also undermines the environmental movement by incorrectly claiming massive environmental damage and setting up a classic ‘cry wolf’ scenario. It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage is yet to be exposed and measured.There have been of course, other sad deceptions throughout history, but all of them were regional, or, at most, continental. The Deceptive idea that human– generated Co2 causes global warming or climate change impacts every person in the entire world, thus it reflects Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the global village. This book shows how the deception was designed to be global by involving every nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will wonder how such a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception. There are several reasons why the public was deceived.1. The objective and therefore the science were meditated.2. The scientific focus was deliberately narrowed to CO2.3. From the start unaccountable government agencies were involved and in control.4. Science and political structures and procedures were put in place to enhance the deception.5. Actions were taken to block or divert challenges.6. The people’s natural fears about change and catastrophe were exploited.7. The public’s lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science, was exploited.8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale couldn’t occur.9. Opponents were ruthlessly attacked, causing others to remain silentSome call the human – caused global warming theme a hoax, but that is incorrect: a hoax is defined as a humorous or malicious deception. The Piltdown man was a hoax for perpetrated by one academic to expose the arrogance and pomposity of another. Its impact was in academia but had little relevance in the real world. There is nothing humorous about the corruption of climate science. Further, a political objective need not be malevolent; however the methods used to achieve the goals are assuredly ugly, malicious and wrong.Some have called the corruption of climate science a conspiracy partly because conspiratorial themes are fueled by speculation on the Internet. But a conspiracy is defined as a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. There is no doubt what the activists have done is harmful, but pursuing a political goal is lawful. What is unlawful is using deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying the scientific method and research. Indeed, it is amazing how they deceived the entire world through using existing laws and societal structures; it fits the classic description of daylight robbery.It is more appropriate to identify the group as a cabal: a secret political clique or faction. This book explains their motive and objectives which were political, not scientific. It explains how in order to do this they bypassed and converted the scientific method–the normal and proper method by which science progresses. They effectively silenced scientist who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skepticsConsider this brave but late admission German physicist meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus:Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data… first I started with the sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what IPCC and the media had been telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by many scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.The Role of Extremists…In the moral vacuum created by the defeat of religion by science many sought a new belief system. Environmentalism fits the bill. It harkened back to the worship of nature, known as animism, of non—Christian societies. Ironically, in becoming the new religion, environmentalism became dogmatic like all religionsSo, in the Western world we moved from the dogmatism of Christianity to the dogmatism of science and then to the dogmatism of environmentalism. It is unsurprising that Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports confronted the dilemmas in an article for The Global Conversation:…At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature– for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism and the puzzling concepts in mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do they come from? Scientist don’t invent; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are Gods laws and the science we do is God’s science.The earth is the Lords and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent that Redeemer of all creation ( John 1: 2 ).A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15) Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to fact—all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.Climate of Corruption : Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming HoaxMelting glaciers, suffering polar bears, rising oceans—these are just a few of the climate change crisis myths debunked by noted aerospace expert Larry Bell in this explosive new book. With meticulous research, Bell deflates these and other climate misconceptions with perceptive analysis, humor, and the most recent scientific data. Written for the laymen, yet in-depth enough for the specialist, this book digs deep into the natural and political aspects of the climate change debate, answering fundamental questions that reveal the all-too-human origins of “scientific” inquiry. Why and how are some of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions cashing in on the debate? Who stand to benefit most by promoting public climate change alarmism? What true political and financial purposes are served by the vilification of carbon dioxide? How do climate deceptions promote grossly exaggerated claims for non-fossil alternative energy capacities and advance blatant global wealth redistribution goals? With its devastating portrayal of scientific and government establishments run amok, this book is an invaluable addition to the tremendously popular literature attacking the scientific status quo. Climate of Corruption will bring welcome relief to all those who are fed up with climate crisis insanity.By now International climate is generally interesting to transfer the resources from developed to developing nations. Or as soon quote from the poor in rich countries to the rich and poor countries. And quotationThe truth is that there is no evidence for any signNow human impact on global climate, and that there is nothing in a practical sense we can do to affect global climate. And is Larry Bell points out, a somewhat warmer climate with increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial overall to earths inhabitants, especially to those in developing nations who depend on agriculture for a living. Climate of Corruption brings a breath of fresh, cool air to the overheated climate debater.S. Fred Singer former director of US National Weather Service light service professor M or M or test at University of Virginia and Cole author of Unstoppable Global Warming“GLOBAL WARMING CEASED TO BE A SUBJECT OF SICENTIFIC DEBATE YEARS AGO” (Page 10)The authors argue that politicians and others claim far more certainty than is justified by the science. The authors also argue that public policy discussions have abandoned science and resorted to ad hominem attacks.Taken by Storm was one of two runners up for the 2002 Donner Prize for the best book on Canadian public policy.[5]In TAKEN BY STORM – The Trouble science, policy and politics of global warming Essex and McKitrick offer a scientifically sound argumentThat is gangsta Main Street. “They cut through all the obfuscation and and doublespeak that surrounds one of the most complex scientific economic issues of our time”We wrote this book because tired see irrational fears about global warming cause nations and their leaders to rush around how in a panic about a crisis that in all probability does not exist and enact obscenely expensive policies that would not fix anything even if it did. We wrote this book because we got tired of seeing science twisted into a prop for policital ideology.The physical phenomena in climate and weather are among the most complex in nature, and science can say very little about what they will do in the future. Yet a large international policy framework has been built precisely on the assumption that we know what is happening and how to control it. In Take by Storm, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick prove this assumption false, carefully explaining the science of climate change and deconstructing the widespread myth of global warming. They argue that the connection between science and society is disintegrating, and they propose a vital first step toward repairing this relationship.The most harmful untrue claim promoted by all governments in the Paris Climate Accord is that a carbon tax will somehow change the earth’s climate for the better. This is truly scientific nonsense and lacks common sense. Warmer is better not colder as we know from past ice ages. The idea of a stable global climate is a fantasy. It never has been and never will as the major driving forces are solar cycles and ocean currents not fossil fuels. These forces are natural, chaotic and unstoppable. See this research -The consequence for developing countries if they enact these taxes and abide by the Paris carbon reducing targets will be the greatest social reversal in history bringing misery and death to millions living without electricity. Cooking outside is the most harmful environmental issue today and Paris demonizing coal power will leave millions without hope of a more healthy alternative.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of signNow climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include signNow uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Sadly the IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The changed completely the intent of the ‘scientists’ doubts. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”Compelling, easy-to-read, and written by internationally recognized experts in applied science, this volume destroys the human-caused global warming theory and clears the innocent carbon dioxide molecule of all the heinous crimes it is accused of. Google BooksOriginally published: 2011Authors: Alan Siddons, Hans Shreuder, John O'SullivanEven before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.INTRODUCTIONThe most fundamental assumption in the theory of human CO2 Is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. Problem is that every record of any duration for any period in history of the earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs: temperatures increase precedes CO2. Despite that a massive deception was developed and continues.How does the massive deception of human induced global warming bypasses normally rigorous scientific method why does it continue to survive? Who orchestrated the science of politics? What was the motor?Two major factors explaining how Antrel Jenny global warming rakkas a GW and brackets evil got away with a massive deception. First was explication of fear. The end of the world is coming, there’s only a few years left in the mantra of everyone UN Secretary-General abandoned key move Prince Charles. Second was exploitation of people’s lack of knowledge or understanding sign. Science… Challenge facing anyone trying to cover the exploiters is to bring logic clarity and understanding in the way a majority of people can understand.Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth? A Dialogue with the Authors of Slaying the Sky DragonDr D Weston Allen – meet the author here 10/10/12INTRODUCTIONMy book, The Weather Makers Re-Examined, published in 2011 by Irenic Publications, was a comprehensive and damning critique of Tim Flannery’s alarming best seller which claimed ‘we are The Weather Makers’. I now examine Slaying the Sky Dragon (SSD), a full frontal attack on the greenhouse theory or ‘sky dragon’ by eight authors who refer to themselves as the ‘Slayers’ (p.358) – a term I adopt when referring to them. This 358-page book was published in 2011 by Stairway Press in WA (USA).Defining the sky dragonThe ‘greenhouse theory’ gradually evolved from the seminal work and limited understanding1 of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, John Tyndall in the 1860s, Svante Arrhenius in 1896-1908, Guy Callendar in 1938 to Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. It holds that solar radiation penetrates Earth’s atmosphere to signNow the surface which is warmed by the absorption of this electromagnetic energy. The warmed surface emits infrared radiation, and much of this outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is intercepted by trace gases in the atmosphere. Some of this energy is radiated back to Earth’s surface where it is absorbed as thermal energy, thus enhancing solar warming of the surface by day and slowing cooling by night. Since glass on a greenhouse also absorbs and re-radiates infrared (IR) radiation, this atmospheric phenomenon became known as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE), and the trace gases are referred to as ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG).As real greenhouses work primarily by limiting convection, and GHGs by promoting it, SSD refers to them as ‘IR-absorbing gases’. Comprising less than half of one percent (0.5%) of Earth’s atmosphere, these gases are scattered somewhat unevenly through the atmosphere and across the globe. Most of the GHE, particularly over the tropics, is due to water vapour (H2O) and clouds in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere where convective mixing and weather occurs. The tropopause, separating the troposphere from the stratosphere, increases in altitude from about 8km over polar regions to about 17km over the tropics. Above the stratosphere is the cold mesosphere (about 50-85km altitude) and then the very warm thin thermosphere which merges into the exosphere (at 350-800km altitude depending on solar activity). The troposphere contains about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is generally considered to be about 100km above Earth’s surface.Without any IR-absorbing GHGs in the atmosphere, all radiative energy losses balancing solar input would occur at Earth’s surface. According to the laws of radiation, the average temperature at the surface would then be about -180C, nearly 330C colder than the observed mean value. While IR is radiated to space from the surface and atmosphere, the average loss occurs where the temperature is actually -180C at an altitude of around 5km. The more GHGs in the atmosphere the higher this average radiative layer; and since the temperature below it increases by about 6.50C/km (the lapse rate), the higher this layer the higher the temperature at Earth’s surface. This critique will examine only the basics of this very complex subject.Arguments presented in Slaying the Sky DragonThe atmosphere is warmed primarily by conduction, not by radiation; and so the major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) are more likely to warm the trace IR-absorbing gases than visa-versa. The major gases also absorb and emit some IR radiation.The IR-absorbing gases simply scatter IR radiation or otherwise pass any absorbed energy on immediately. These trace gases absorb more solar radiation than OLR and thus cool Earth’s surface; so they are notgreenhouse gases; it is water vapour that makes tropical rainforests cooler than tropical deserts. The glass on a greenhouse works only by limiting convection, not by back-radiation.There is no such thing as back-radiation (no empirical evidence for it) and the postulated recycling of energy between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is a non-physical ‘amplification’.Atmospheric IR radiation cannot affect Earth’s surface temperature because heat cannot flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.Every planet with an atmosphere has a surface temperature higher than predicted; and the surface temperature of such planets rises in direct proportion to atmospheric pressure.The lapse rate (declining temperature with altitude) is determined by gravity and the specific heat of the atmospheric gases, not by their ability to absorb IR radiation.The GHE is supposed to increase lapse rates, but Earth’s lapse rate (6.5K/km) is lower than predicted (9.8K/km), so the greenhouse theory is wrong.Since emissions occur at the TOA at a mean altitude of 5km (where it is -180C), the lapse rate alone explains the fact that Earth’s effective blackbody temperature is 330C below its surface temperature (150C).Based on a surface emissivity of ‘about 0.7’, a GHE is not needed to balance Earth’s energy budget. Averaging Earth’s energy budget over day and night in flat earth climate models is fundamentally flawed,and this invalidates all climate models.Human emissions of CO2 are not a problem since more than 98% is absorbed within a year.Historically, temperature rises precede atmospheric CO2 increases; so global warming produces more CO2, released from warming oceans, never the opposite.Increased geo-nuclear activity is warming the oceans from below and causing global warming. Global temperatures have been going down rapidly.The critical issue is not climate sensitivity (to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels) or how much global warming is due to CO2, because none of it is.There is no empirical evidence for a GHE but ample evidence against it, as provided in SSD and at their website: Principia Scientific International.http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/g...This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONKent Price4.0 out of 5 stars As a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this bookNovember 25, 2014 - Published on Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreIt is no surprise that the sun is the major contributor to the Earth's surface temperature. However, this book details how the sun changes with time, in terms of electromagnetic energy radiated, magnetic field changes, and coronal mass ejections, and the resultant impact on temperature of the Earth. The result is not a simple variation of "total radiated energy" but also complex interactions such as the Sun's magnetic field shielding the Earth from cosmic rays (radiation from outside the solar system) which in turn cause more cloud cover which reflects sunlight and reduces temperatures.The book is organized with a preface plus nine chapters, four of which are written by guest contributors:(1) It's the sun stupid(2) Climate catastrophe deferred - a summary(3) Our temperamental sun (by Nir Shaviv), Solar forcing and 20-th century climate change(4) Brief history of temperature: our climate in the past (by Nicola Scafetta)(5) Has the IPCC really done its homework? (by Henrik Svensmark), cosmic rays and clouds(6) Misunderstood climate amplifiers (by Werner Weber), mining a treasure trove of old solar data(7) A look into the future(8) How climate scientists are attempting to transform society(9) A new energy agenda emergesAs a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this book and heartily recommend it to the general reader, just ignore the extensive footnotes at the end of each chapter (and which would have been better left to the end of the book). A strong point in the book is the extensive graphs (which are very small on the Kindle) and discussion of climate data gathered over time (100's, 1000's, and even 100,000's of years). This data from the past indicates the possible changes in the future. An interesting note is that the current climate models which focus on CO2 and a static sun are not able to fit the actual past data.The governments of the world are rushing to declare a "climate crisis" in order to justify new carbon taxes (which assume that increased CO2 emissions are causing climate changes). The material in this book should help taxpayers understand the major factors that impact climate and the expected rate of temperature change.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTCProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United StatesAvailable online 23 September 2016.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.·An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming· Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field· Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming· Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography· Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions5.0 out of 5 starsVery good, thorough, documented, convincing, does not conjecture beyond the actual evidence. Should be read by allJanuary 13, 2017Comprehensive, thorough, best overview of entire climate debate that I have found. Good introductions and summaries for each chapter, good literature reviews, lots of good graphs and charts to help in understanding things clearly, and the book does not go beyond the evidence. Its premise is stated throughout the book, that "the past is the key to the future" in climate science. Makes a convincing case that the Sun/earth system is the primary driver of climate variation. Clearly documents the "medieval warm period" clearly demonstrates that Co2 follows rather than causes global warming, clearly breaks with the predictive models that point to more warming by predicting a coming cooling phase. The recent "hiatus" may very well be a leveling off of the most recent warming phase.My intention is to rely on the facts by using a vital compendium of science articles published by the prestigious INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS in Australia.The Facts, featuring 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.A major amount of analysis is devoted to the more than 100 emails called CLIMATEGATE. The emails give valuable insight into how the distortion of science for political and monetary gain happened.The classic cheating exposed by the “climate gate emails” is very troubling. Here is a primary confession of fudging from only one of more than 100 email documents -November 16, 1999: email 0942777075That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email which generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science.Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [emphasis added]This email was sent less than two months after the one analysed above. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making an honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past 20 or 40 years as required.That Mann did so would, of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is their silence and collaboration over the following decade in “hiding the decline” which justifies the use of the word “conspiracy”; a conspiracy which will rob the “discipline” of climate science of any credibility, and which will cast suspicion about the integrity of Western science for many decades to come.http://www.lavoisier.com.au/arti...The UN IPCC and the Paris Accord fear that global warming will lead to catastrophe is no more science based than predictions by astrologists. The true story of the science or lack thereof is documented by Bernie Lewin’s book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC – is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world.Yet the surprising story of how it came to prominence is little known. Its origins can be traced back to earlier panics over the effects of supersonic transportation and ozone layer depletion, which taught political elites that science-based scares could be powerful drivers of policy action. It was as an authority fit to deliver the required evidence on climate change that the IPCC came into being.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise.THIS IS WHAT MORE THAN 2000 UN RESEARCHERS FOUNDNO STUDY DETECTED MAN-MADE IMPACT ON ALL OR PART OF OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGE.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of signNow climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The report detailed why and the primary reason was the overpowering reality of natural variability from solar cycles explained all weather and climate changes.“This is an important summary of the truth about Global Warming (aka Climate Change). The hoax is not that the climate is changing or that the globe is in a warming trend. The hoax is not that the increased energy production is causing man-made carbon dioxide levels to rise dramatically in the last 150 years and will continue as a result of improved prosperity in the third world. The hoax is not that water vapor and carbon dioxide are the end product of power plants and automobiles.
No, the hoax is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer. And the biggest hoax is that carbon dioxide is not causing the temperature to increase. Water vapor, which is 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide and regulated by the oceans, is the true and only real greenhouse gas, without which the whole earth would be covered in ice. Thus, all efforts to curb carbon dioxide production are a total waste of capital. “ “ The Two Hoaxes of Climate ChangeBy Tomas de PaulisJanuary 23, 2017 “ The Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide Hoax: Easy to Read Proof That Climate Change Is Normal and Not Man-Made, Alan Fensin - Amazon.comI think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/3557184...New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate SciencePosted on September 20, 2015 by curryja | 561 Commentsby Judith CurryDoubt and Certainty in Climate Science is an important new book that everyone should read. And its free.It is a privilege to make available to you the book Doubt and Certainty in ClimateScience, by Alan Longhurst [link Longhurst print to download the book].The book is 239 pages long, with 606 footnotes/references. The book is well written, technical but without equations – it is easily accessible to anyone with a technical education or who follows the technical climate blogs.In this post I provide a brief overview of the book, biosketch of Alan Longhurst, some additional backstory on the book, and my own comments on the book.PrefaceThe Preface provides some interesting history, here are some excerpts:But more recently, I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale. The research of H.H. Lamb and others on the natural changes of regional and global climate of the Holocene appeared to be no longer of interest, and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was being discussed as if it was reducible to change in a single value that represented global surface temperature.The complex relationship between solar cycles and regional climate states on Earth that was central to classical climatology (and is still being discussed in the peer-­‐reviewed literature) had been replaced with a reductionist assumption concerning radiative balance, and the effective dismissal of any signNow solar influence. I found this rejection of an entire body of scientific literature troubling, and looked for a disinterested discussion of the balance between natural and anthropogenic effects, but could not find what I wanted -­‐a book that covered the whole field in an accessible and unprejudiced manner, and that was based solely on the scientific literature: I found text-­‐books on individual topics aplenty, together with a flood of others, either supporting or attacking the standard climate change model, but none that was based wholly on studies certified by peer-­‐review -­‐and whose author was inquisitive rather than opinionated.One thing led to another and this text is the result. My intention has been to examine the scientific literature that both supports – and also contradicts -­‐the standard description of anthropogenic climate change, and its effects on Earth systems: I undertook the task with an open mind concerning the interpretation of the evidence presented in individual research reports, and collectively by those who have been tasked to report to governments on the progress of climate change and to predict future states.Because of my experience, this review leans very heavily on discussion of the role of the oceans in controlling climate states, but I make no apology for this: their role is central and critical and too often ignored.Anthropogenic modification of climate, especially of micro-­‐climates, is undoubtedly occurring but I have been unable to convince myself that the radiative contribution of carbon dioxide can be observed in the data, although modellers have no trouble in demonstrating the effect.Because there will certainly be some who will question my motive in undertaking this task, I assure them that I have been impelled by nothing other than curiosity and have neither sought nor received financial support from any person or organisation in the prepaatio and distribution of this eBookEvidence and logic are lacking in many areas of public debate today on hot-button issues ranging from dietary fat to vaccination.In Science Under Attack, Dr. Alexander shows how science is being abused, sidelined or ignored, making it difficult or impossible for the public to form a reasoned opinion about important issues. Readers will learn why science is becoming more corrupt, and also how it is being abused for political and economic gain, support of activism, or the propping up of religious beliefs.This revised edition of Ralph Alexander’s 2009 book features approximately 50% new or updated material, including an expanded chapter on alternative explanations to CO2 as the main source of global warming. Newly added sections in the 2nd edition cover temperature tampering by the three major custodians of the world’s temperature data, so as to exaggerate the global warming rate; the Climategate scandal; the use of peer review as an alarmist weapon; the neglected influence of the sun on our climate, including the amplification of solar activity by the oceans; heat that is suppposedly hiding in the deep ocean, but can’t be found; and more. The new book also describes how the UN’s IPCC and other alarmists manipulate climate data, discusses the lack of warming for more than a decade – about which alarmists are in denial, and explains the folly of carbon pricing schemes for regulating CO2. Finally, the author reflects on the reasons that so many people erroneously believe recent climate change comes from human activity, when there’s ample evidence to the contrary.Charles4.0 out of 5 starsThe alternative viewpoint of global warmingDecember 20, 2018Professor Plimer is highly qualified to write such a scientific book, and that is borne out by the text. His thesis is that global climate has varied over millenia and will continue to vary, with no influence by humans or our carbon combustion. What I particularly appreciate is that - unlike the IPCC - Professor Plimer cites references that the reader can check for oneself, to back up every claim he makes. He includes graphs from both IPCC and other sources to prove that the IPCC claims are false. Anyone truly interested in the climate change issue should read this book before deciding what is true and what is false.AMAZON -Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively high carbon dioxide. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher than it is today. The non-scientific popular political view is that humans change climate. Do we have reason for concern about possible human-induced climate change? This book’s 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging “creation science,” Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore’s book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific “misrepresentations.” “Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists,” he writes, “who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.”Kenneth FairhurstThe Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists[2]1. Lennart O. BengtssonBengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.[14]Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.Professional WebsiteSelected BooksGeosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2001)The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change (Springer, 2012)Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows (Springer, 2012)Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet (Springer, 2013)2. John R. ChristyChristy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15]Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16]; In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.[17]Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.[18]In an interview with the New York Times published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19]However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to ad hominem attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.”Reliability of satellite data sets," Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.3. Judith A. CurryCurry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist