Ever since the election there have been loud voices proclaiming that the election was stolen. Most of the media have claimed that it was the greatest lie ever told by candidate Trump.
over 70% of Republican voters still believe that the election was stolen. Even about 30% of the Democrats believe so also, but many of them don’t mind, since it was for a greater purpose.
This is no way to try to unite the nation. There is a good way to resolve it, by conducting a forensic analysis of at least 6 states, all battleground states.
These are the allegations in the form of a handy chart.
In addition, such as the allegations from Antrim County in Michigan seem to question the validity of the whole voting system, with machines connected to the internet during counting and numerous other problems, and if these questions are not further investigated I will never believe in an election again.
If all of the allegations will be proven false, I stand corrected.
It is to be noted that the switched votes, from Trump to Biden and from Jo Jorgensen to Biden is not a complete list. It involves only six states, and the confessed vote switching that occurred in Italy is not yet included.
At the very least we should conduct an audit, involving manual recount. The audit done in Antrim County, Michigan where over 60% of the votes went for adjudication – over the internet is as big a red flag as I have ever seen.
If, after a manual audit and recount of all valid votes the reported numbers are correct I stand corrected, but if not I am convinced the election was stolen – by many foreign powers no less. I am not alone in this assertion, over 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen and even 30% of Democrats believe so also.
Quote from Alexandria Occasio-Cortez in January 2019: “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.
I beg to differ.
We live in only one world. As a concerned citizen I realize we have immense environmental challenges before us, with water pollution; from plastics in the ocean, excess fertilizer in the rivers, poison from all kinds of chemicals, including antibiotics, birth control and other medicines flushed down the toilet after going through our bodies, animals fed antibiotics, pest control, weed control and so on. Increasing CO2 is not one of the problems, it will in fact help with erosion control, and allow us to feed more people on less agricultural land with proper management, and require less fertilizer and water to do so. In fact, proper water management is a larger problem, with some rivers no longer even reaching the ocean. All water is already spoken for, especially in the 10 to 40 degrees latitude, where most people live.
Allow me to be somewhat technical and give the background to why I know we will never experience the thermal runaway they are so afraid of.
Many years ago I worked at Hewlett Packard on an Atomic Absorption Detector. It was a huge technical success but a commercial failure, as it was too expensive to use for routine applications. However it found a niche and became the detector of choice when dismantling the huge nerve gas stockpiles remaining from the cold war. I was charged with doing the spectrum analysis and produce the final data from the elements. One day two salesmen came and tried to sell us a patented device that could identify up to 21 different elements with one analysis. They had a detector that divided the visual band into 21 parts, and bingo, with proper, not yet “fully developed” software you could now analyze up to 21 elements with one gas chromath analysis. What could be better? We could only analyze correctly four or five elements simultaneously. It turns out the elements are absorbing in the same wavelength bands, scientifically speaking they are not orthogonal, so software massaging can only go so far. It turned out that the promised new detector was inferior to what we already had and could only quantify three or 4 elements at the most.
In the atmosphere the two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2 with methane a distant third. Water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas everywhere except near the tropopause high above the high clouds and near the poles when the temperature is below 0 F, way below freezing. A chart shows the relationship between CO2 and water vapor:
Even in Barrow, Alaska water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Only at the South Pole (And North Pole) does CO2 dominate (but only in the winter).
All Climate models take this into account, and that is why they all predict that the major temperature increase will occur in the polar regions with melting icecaps and other dire consequences. But they also predict a uniform temperature rise from the increased forcing from CO2 and the additional water vapor resulting from the increased temperature.
This is wrong on two accounts. First, CO2 and H2O gas are nor orthogonal, that means they both absorb in the same frequency bands. There are three bands where CO2 absorbs more than H2O in the far infrared band, but other than that H2O is the main absorber. If H2O is 80 times as common as CO2 as it is around the equator, water vapor is still the dominant absorber, and the amount of CO2 is irrelevant.
Secondly gases cannot absorb more than 100% of the energy available in any given energy wavelength! So if H2O did absorb 80% of the energy and CO2 absorbed 50%, the sum is not 130%, only 90%. (0.8 + 0.5×0,2 or 0.5 + 0.8×0.5). In this example CO2 only adds one quarter of what the models predict.
How do I know this is true? Lucky for us we can measure what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has already accomplished. For a model to have credibility it must be tested with measurements, and pass the test. There is important evidence suggesting the basic story is wrong. All greenhouse gases work by affecting the lapse rate in the tropics. They thus create a “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. The theorized “hot spot” is shown in the early IPCC publications. (Fig A)
Fig. B shows observations. The hotspot is not there. If the hotspot is not there, the models must be wrong. So what is wrong with the models? This was reported in 2008 and the models still assume the additive nature of greenhouse gases, even to the point when more than 100% of the energy in a given band is absorbed.
How about Methane? Do not worry, it absorbs nearly exclusively in the same bands as water vapor and has no measurable influence on the climate.
But it will get warmer at the poles. That will cause melting of the ice-caps? Not so fast. When temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, so it will snow more at higher latitudes. While winter temperatures will be higher with more snowfall, this will lower the summer temperatures until the extra snow has melted. And that is what is happening in the Arctics
As we can see from this picture, the winters were about 5 degrees warmer, but starting from late May through early August temperatures were lower. It takes time to melt all the extra snow that fell because of the less cold air, able to contain more water vapor.
These are my suggestions
Do not worry about increasing CO2 levels. The major temperature stabilizer is clouds, and they will keep the earth from overheating by reflecting back into space a large amount of incoming solar radiation. Always did, and always will, even when the CO2 concentration was more than 10000 ppm millions of years ago. Ice ages will still come, and this is the next major climate change, maybe 10000 years from now, probably less.
Clean up rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution. This is a priority.
Limit Wind turbine electric energy to areas not populated by large birds to save the birds. Already over 1.3 million birds a year are killed by wind turbines, including the bald and Golden Eagles that like to build their aeries on top of wind turbines.
Do not build large solar concentration farms. They too kill birds.
Solar panels are o.k. not in large farms, but distributed on roofs to provide backup power.
Exploit geothermal energy in geologically stable areas.
Where ever possible add peak power generation and storage capacity to existing hydroelectric power plants by pumping back water into the dams during excess capacity.
Add peak power storage dams, even in wildlife preserves. The birds and animals don’t mind.
Develop Thorium based Nuclear Power. Russia, China, Australia and India are ahead of us in this. Streamline permit processes. Prioritize research. This should be our priority, for when the next ice age starts we will need all the CO2 possible.
Put fusion power as important for the future but do not rush it, let the research and development be scientifically determined. However, hybrid Fusion -Thorium power generation should be developed.
When Thorium power is built up and has replaced coal and gas fired power plants, then is the time to switch to electric cars, not before.
Standard Nuclear Power plants should be replaced by Thorium powered nuclear plants, since they have only 0,01% of the really bad long term nuclear waste.
Start thinking about recovering CO2 directly from the air and produce aviation fuel. This should be done as Thorium power has replaced coal and gas fired power plants.
This is but a start, but the future is not as bleak as all fearmongers state.
Yes, John Kerry must have been the only choice for environmental Czar. After all, he already has six houses, twelve cars, a yacht and his own private jet.
He will promote off-shore wind power, except outside one of his homes, solar power, but no new power lines anywhere near one of his homes, anddo away with coal.
I too want to limit coal consumption, but for an entirely different reason. I want to save some for future generations, and especially when we enter the next ice-age, which may be nearer than most people think.
If you hate Donald Trump, but can’t get yourself to vote for the Biden Harris ticket, what to do? After all Harris dropped out of the competition with less than 2% support before the Iowa primary and Biden came in fifth in the New Hampshire primary. I fully expected that the libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen would get at least as many votes in 2020 as her predecessor got in 2016. Instead the vote count dropped from 3.3% to 1.2%.
Here is a hint of what happened; this time on election night in Pennsylvania:Between 12:09 a.m. and 12:15 a.m. Jo Jorgensen LOST 42,038 votes. Where did they go? It is my assumption that they went to Biden. Only a manual recount of Pennsylvania can resolve this. As it stands now, we have no election integrity.
From a small precinct in Antrim County, Michigan comes this astounding vote result:
“Dominion’s voting machine totals showed 663 people voted in a district where there were only 6 eligible voters and only 3 of those 6 actually voted. Somehow, Dominion added 660 additional votes to the final tally.”
The votes that were counted in Antrim
would lead to a truth seeker’s tantrum
Find the Trump votes to trim
Add to Biden for win
the cheat, steal and change votes to grant him.
These are the so called “glitches” in the software. Some voting machines were connected to the internet while counting was going on. All results from the thumb drives were uploaded to the live feed given to NYT and the Guardian for online real time election result display. But an even more detailed feed was transmitted worldwide and was archived in Germany. The voting machines that were connected to the internet could have been modified from another server, either domestically or by a foreign power, for example, China. They had an interest in electing Biden.
This is no way to run an election! Banks can do safe transactions without any “glitches”. Voting is much easier to make secure. Granted, you need ID to deal with the bank and voting is anonymous after eligibility is established. To solve this, record the verified ID and signature of the application,complete with an encrypted code. Then print the same encrypted code on the paper vote and the return envelope. Then the signature checks can be made automatic, and the vote itself is traceable, and only those machines with access to the encryption code can identify the vote.
Gateway Pundit shows how part of the fraud was done:
Before the English writer Rudyard Kipling in 1910 wrote the book “Rewards and Fairies,” he toured all over the United States. He spent time in Philadelphia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In “Brother Square-Toes,” a story in “Rewards and Fairies,” Kipling says this about Lancaster:
“It’s a kindly, softly country there, back of Philadelphia among the German towns, Lancaster way. Little houses and bursting big barns, fat cattle, fat women, and all as peaceful as Heaven might be if they farmed there.”
That was 1910. Lancaster Co teems with Amish and Mennonites. They stayed away from the evil ways of the English, shunned modernization, hated wars and immorality, and they didn’t vote. After Bill Clinton became President this all changed, and they started voting, pro-life.
This year there was a record participation in voting, even in Mail-in requests.
Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA:
A brief note. I’ve been asked to examine the Pennsylvania votes. That work is ongoing. Update See below for a serious critique of Benford’s law.
I’m showing here (with permission) the one analysis I found most curious.
This is official county-level timed voting data that started at 2020-11-04 11:00:00, a day after the election, to 2020-11-07 11:29:00 which is Saturday night. That is, these are all late vote counts. They start, county by county, where the vote left off on election night.
This is a picture of the running totals by the time the votes were added, summed across all counties, during those time periods. They do not start at 0, but at the totals given after election night.
The early gains for Biden are from, mainly, Philadelphia, Allegheny, Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties. A simple plot
shows the size of vote additions for both candidates, when new vote totals (greater than 0) were added by county (and not all counties added votes after election day).
All goes well for Trump until 2020-11-04 21:15:00 when he loses just under 10,000 votes, but curiously from three different counties simultaneously: -1,063 Allegheny; -2,972 Bucks; -7,135 Chester. Biden never lost any votes (at least, in this late voting).
Understand that this does not mean the decreases happened at this time, but that they were recorded in the official data as happening at that time. And the same is true for our next observation.
Biden’s next curiosity was the big increase of 27,396 votes at 2020-11-06 08:53:00 over one consecutive reporting period. This bump is just like the blue-red F-memes you have seen: this only seems more spread out because of the finer time scale used.
These two curiosities account for a 37,263 vote swing for Biden. Biden’s total, as of the end of this data, was 3,344,528, and Trump’s 3,310,326. Biden therefore “won”, in this dataset anyway, by 34,202 votes.
Biden could not have pulled ahead without the curiosities noted above.
There is more to come. Stick around.
Update Benford’s law is only useful in uncovering multiple and on-going instances of cheating. As in somebody consistently cooking financial books. As I showed above, assuming the curiosities are cheats, it only took two instances to tip the balance. Benford’s law will never pick this up: never.
I’m skeptical of what I’m seeing in other analyses, because if somebody turns something up with Benford, it implies that many, many vote totals were tampered with, which increases the possibilities of getting caught. And you don’t need to tamper with many. Only a few.