Sheryl Bennett

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

The smoking gun of junk science.

Climate “scientists” assume that there are no natural long-term fluctuations in cloud cover or atmospheric water vapor concentration. This is because these academics assume that cloud cover and water vapor concentrations can only change in response to a change in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from input CO₂ as opposed to the other way around (i.e., cloud cover changes affect temperature).

And because our scientific knowledge about natural variability is limited, these “scientists” simply assume that natural variability isn’t a component to any of the modern warming because their “state-of-the-art” climate models that run on “fundamental physics” cannot reproduce GMST observations with natural forcings and variability alone. It is also assumed that the radiation fluxes into and out of the atmosphere were in balance before the Industrial Revolution. This, of course, is another ridiculous belief.

Modelers arbitrarily turn knobs on the anthropogenic parameter schemes (e.g., greenhouse gas and aerosol) until the modeled GMST “results” come into agreement with GMST observations.

That’s a curve fitting exercise, not real science.

We know that this is a curve fitting exercise because while the Earth has a very specific (albeit unknown) response value to radiative forcing, the uncertainty on the aerosol contribution to global warming since 1850 has a 125% error and the greenhouse gases (GHG) have a 37.5% error. By the way, these estimates are from climate models in the CMIP6 suite. If there is that much spread between models, that means that their ability to reproduce observed temperature trends is not necessarily because the physics are correct. And in many cases, the known physics of GHG forcing yield values too high that have to be brought down by adjusting either the cloud or aerosol schemes.

How can people say “The science is settled” when the “physics” yield such large uncertainties?

[Elizabeth Barcohana @E_Barcohana]

I am very bothered by the attacks On Here against mothers who defended motherhood today.

Two men purchasing a baby via surrogacy is a very specific and new phenomenon that only 6 or so countries in the world permit, plus some states in the US.

Since it erases motherhood completely, mothers have strong feelings about it.

I am one.

We do not doubt their capacity to love a child or their ability to be good fathers. But as in a marriage, love alone is not enough to raise a child.

If a child can be created via surrogacy for the purpose of two men becoming fathers, that means the mother who carried and gave birth to that baby is disposable in the child’s life.

And, taking it one step further, if an intentionally motherless household is just the same as a nuclear household, that means mothers are optional.

Mothers are neither disposable nor optional. And we will not be silent as we are being erased.

Optimal, healthy human childhood development requires both a mother and father. There is evidence to support this. For example, children of same sex couples do not have the same outcomes as children of married opposite sex couples (eg high school graduation rates).

Somehow, we agree that fatherlessness is one of the largest indicators of whether a child will achieve positive outcomes, but when it comes to two mothers raising a child without a father, we suspend all logic in that context lest we be accused of bigotry. Just like mothers are not optional, neither are fathers.

Somehow, we agree that men and women are different, and men can’t become women, but when we are talking about gay men, fathers can become stand ins for mothers? No. Fathers and mothers contribute differently to a child’s upbringing. Both are needed. These abilities are complementary and not interchangeable. “Any two” parents will not do.

Further, humans have an innate need to know and bond to the mother and father who created them. You see evidence of this in adopted adults who spend years searching for their birth parents. It is driven by a primal longing to know oneself. Creating a motherless child leaves a hole in the child’s identity, forever.

We are not talking today about same sex couples who adopt a child that would be worse off but for the adoption into a loving home. I personally would rather see a baby whose mother is unable to care for him adopted by someone who can, gay or straight.

We are talking about something much more specific: intentionally creating a motherless child.

In the case of the former example, the child’s best interest is at the center of the analysis. In the case of the latter, it is the adult’s desire that takes center stage, to the detriment of the child.

That is not parenting.

That is, in fact, the opposite of parenting.

It is something else entirely.

cc @megbasham @Katy_Faust @conservmillen @BillboardChris @DefiyantlyFree

[Katy Faust @Katy_Faust]

What did you think was going to happen after we legalized #GayMarriage?

That same-sex couples would finally be able to visit one another in the hospital? Inherit property? Make medical decisions? Many of those legal protections were already available through powers of attorney, contracts, and other legal arrangements.

What #Obergefell enabled was something else.

It accelerated the legal replacement of biological parenthood with intent-based parenthood.

It made it easier to detach children from their mother or father and reattach them to biological strangers so same-sex couples could be "equal" to husband-wife couples.

It conditioned an entire culture to repeat, “Love makes a family,” by threatening them with social isolation if they refused.

It permitted scrubbing “mother” and “father” from parentage laws and replacing them with "gestating" and "non-gestating" parent in the name of non-discrimination.

It made politicians afraid to defend the importance of mothers and fathers because genderless families had been upheld by the country's highest court.

The lasting legacy of #Obergefell has not simply been the redefinition of marriage. It has been the unmaking of the American family by erasing mother and father, both in law and culture.

Children deserve better. @MakeKidsGreater

[Gray Connolly @GrayConnolly]

Always amuses when the American Right - which cannot even conserve the most basic reverence for the natural family & maternal / paternal bonds with their children - is alleged to have some master plan beyond adopting liberal premises… just 5 years later

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@mitchellvii I resemble this post!

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@FreddyLA7 Freddy. Thanks for sharing your experience. It was enjoyable to share World Cup with you.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Here are TEN questions that I have for any climate alarmists reading, and I hope I can get some honest answers down in the comments:

1️⃣ You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius.

2️⃣ What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain.

3️⃣ What makes CO₂ “air pollution”?

The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.”

But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die.

4️⃣ Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare?

5️⃣ The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens?

6️⃣ If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math).

7️⃣ What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know?

8️⃣ If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on?

9️⃣ Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy.

🔟 Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

When someone tells you that “97% of climate scientists agree,” a good follow-up question to that is, “What exactly do 97% agree on?” That mankind contributes to climate change in some capacity? Or that we are facing a climate crisis? Those are two very different positions. Now, we know that the “97% consensus” was a botched statistic, but you can nonetheless play ball. I don't think 97% of scientists agree on anything except that they do not want to lose government (taxpayer) funding.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Hi Ryan. Let me explain somethin' to you.

Glaciers are always going to grow or recede.

Sea levels are always going to rise or fall.

Temperatures are always going to go up or down.

We live on a planet in a universe where the only thing constant is change.

Contrary to what you believe, things aren't supposed to stay static over time.

When climate changes, that does not mean that we are responsible. And even if we are, that does not mean that it's a crisis.

Thanks for coming to my science lesson.

[Spencer Pratt @spencerpratt]

"If your mom and pop shop can't compete with the wealthiest municipal government stealing 30% of your own revenue + tax $$ from 8.5 million people to undercut your prices, you shouldn't be in business"
Socialists are truly the dumbest people on earth.

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@historyrock_ Rock of Ages - Def Leppard

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Thankfully I have numbers rather than opinions.

The average number of days per year in the U.S. reaching 95°F was ~18% lower during the 60-year period 1961 to 2020 compared to 1901 to 1960.

The number of days reaching 100°F and 105°F have also declined since 1895.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Eat a mouthful of grass and you get nothing. It goes in green and comes out green.

Eat straw and you get nothing. Your gut cannot touch cellulose.

Eat acorns and you get tannins, and a very bad afternoon.

Eat bracken and you get a carcinogen.

Eat nettles, thistles, brambles, rushes and moorland heather and you get a mouth full of blood and no calories.

Eat the beet pulp, the oat husks and the spent brewer's grain and you get the waste the factory couldn't sell.

Now feed the lot of it to a cow.

She turns every one of them into steak, butter, cream, milk and a hide, on land that will never grow a vegetable, using four stomachs and a fermentation vat you do not have.

The grass she eats grew on rain and sunlight, for free, on a hillside nobody can plough.

She is the only creature on earth that can take a field of inedible fibre and hand you back the most nutrient-dense food there is.

The cow is not competing with you for food. She eats the ninety percent you cannot.

Best plant-based diet ever invented. It just has a cow in the middle doing the hard part.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

After tonight, it’s even clearer that the Senate should take the SAVE America Act and continue debating it until it passes

Repost if you agree

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@edstetzer So true! 😂

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@mitchellvii It’s a little slow.

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@mitchellvii I hope we can win midterms. Redistricting, Jewish movement to the right, DSA, people tired of bad government (but not sure that works) people working the ground like TPA and Pressler.

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@linadreaamy 1/3

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@DrFrankTurek Who God is and his Holiness. Relationship with Christ Jesus is most precious because it restores a broken relationship where it is impossible to know God to one where we see more and more as we walk in our restored relationship.

[Sheryl Bennett @SherylB623]

@linadreaamy 98