Monday, December 26, 2011

There is No Man Made atmosphere emergency (Global Warming is a Hoax)

There is No Man Made atmosphere emergency (Global Warming is a Hoax)


The mainstream media has got a very large measure of the habitancy duped into believing that humans have caused some sort of climate urgency (global warming) and that paying new emissions taxes will somehow fix all that is wrong with the world. This "crisis" is precisely the most scam of all time and is based on bad science. It is a excellent Problem/Reaction/Solution that is being used to line the pockets of fat cat "environmentalists" and supplementary enslave humanity. In this article I will elucidate why the so called "climate crisis" is fallacy and nothing to worry about, who is behind it, and why you should refuse to pay a tax on living/breathing.

In the mainstream media it appears as though the "global warming" debate is over. We are facing a great problem, our carbon dioxide emissions have caused Earth's temperature to rise and if we don't do something to stop it right now we will face great cataclysmic events. The polar ice caps will melt, our ocean levels will rise and displace hundreds of millions of people, species will go extinct, and humanity will be brought to its knees. The truth is that what is presented to us as scientifically proven fact in the mainstream is still hotly contested by tens of thousands of the world's top scientists, and no real debate has even been done. Today you receive dumbfounded looks or worse if you even begin to question the validity of the idea that man made global warming exists and is caused by Co2 emissions. More likely you are ridiculed and possibly even considered to be suffering from a reasoning disorder when you present such a blasphemous question. Global warming has advanced an approximately religious, or cult-like following in the years since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was produced and marketed through the mainstream media and was sent to schools as part of a new curriculum to indoctrinate our youth into the new religion of "climate change". Suddenly and without debate, a pseudo-scientific ideas became fact approximately over night. To this day Al Gore and his fellow fear-mongering "environmentalists" refuse any sort of debate on the branch and proclaim that it is just too urgent to waste time debating something so silly when what we need to do is focus on the solution. A clarification which just happens to make Al Gore very rich. If global warming caused by man made carbon dioxide emissions is such a silly thing to debate, why don't they just do the debate and get it over with? Why won't Al Gore and other alarmists debate the issue? I imagine the imagine they will not engage in the debate is because they are wrong, and debating it would prove them so. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, along with over 30,000 other scientists are now trying to sue Al Gore for fraud. They feel that since the mainstream media will not cover both sides of the story, there is no other way to get the issue looked at seriously, so they are taking it to the courts.

It is evident that the climate on earth is precisely changing, but the climate on earth is all the time changing and humans have very puny influence over it. A professor by the name of Nir Shaviv from the make of Physics at the University of Jerusalem discovered that there have been periods in earth's history where there was up to ten times as much carbon dioxide in the climate as there is now, yet it had next to no impact on earth's temperature. Professer Ian Clark of the division of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa is quoted saying "If we look at climate from the geological timeframe we would never imagine Co2 as a major climate driver. You can't say that Co2 will drive climate, it precisely never did in the past". Dr. Piers Corbyn, a weather forecaster who uses sunspots to predict weather patterns, said that Co2 does not elucidate any past weather patterns. Professor Patrick Michaels of the division of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has said that "anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn't looked at the basic numbers". One main imagine that some habitancy believe Co2 causes warming is the results of ice core surveys that can measure earth temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth it is said that for 650,000 years the ice core surveys show correlation between Co2 and temperature. "When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer". While the ice core surveys precisely do show that Co2 and warming seem to go together, Al Gore and his team make an incorrect assumption when they state that it is the Co2 that causes the warming. Professor Ian Clark says that Al Gore's team got it backwards, and that the warming precisely causes the Co2. The ice core samples show that the warming leads the Co2 by about 800 years which means it could not possibly be the Co2 causing the temperature to change. Clark says that carbon dioxide is a goods of temperature, not the other way around, and that wholly destroys the fundamentals of the ideas behind "global warming".

If it's not Co2 that's behind climate change, then what is causing all this apparent warming (we are precisely in a cooling period, more on that later) that is melting the polar ice caps and raising sea levels? I know this might sound crazy so I'm just going to throw this idea out there for you to chew on for a bit... Could it possibly be the sun? When Dr. Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck make for Solar ideas explore in Germany analyzed sunspot cycles and compared them to temperatures on earth, he found it stunningly definite that when there are more solar flares, also known as sunspots, the temperature goes up to reflect the increase in solar activity. It's not only more heat from the sun that causes warming, cosmic rays interacting with water vapour generate clouds which result the temperature of earth. When there is strong solar radiation (more sunspots), fewer solar ray particles get through to the earth, resulting in fewer clouds. When there are fewer clouds, more solar heat is able to get through. When learning cosmic ray and temperature records going back up to six million years, you will find that when there is less solar radiation there are more cloud-forming cosmic rays, and temperatures go down. When solar radiation increases you will find that the temperature goes up, every particular time. I have included a graph on my blog which shows the relationship between cosmic-rays and cloud cover, and someone else graph showing the relationship between sunspots and global temperature. Whatever with half a brain should be able to see that the sun is obviously the driving factor when it comes to the temperature on earth.

Often we are told that our planet is warmer now than ever before in recorded history. What they forget to mention is that "recorded history" means somewhere between 1860 and 1914. Our planet has been through many cycles, some chronic tens or hundreds of thousands of years, so are records from only 150 years ago precisely all that meaningful? explore by a study team at Harvard University showed that we have had much higher temperatures in the last thousand years, and we are not at an extreme at whether end of the spectrum. between the 9th and 14th centuries the temperatures were much warmer than today and in the 15th century there was the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" during which many rivers and waterways iced over and habitancy had to adapt to the cooler temperatures. We are currently not even in a warm duration when compared to the last 60 years or so we are precisely in a cooling phase. Below is a graph which shows the current cooling trend. Modern news reports show that 2008 was the coldest year in the last century, with many countries reporting article amounts of snow in places that don't commonly get any. You might find it funny to know that The International organization for Global Warming had to postpone last years discussion due to an unexpected blizzard and article breaking cold weather. These climate changes are natural, ever-present, and are nothing to be afraid of.

Even if carbon dioxide was causing warming of our earth, carbon taxes would not be a clarification to the problem. Paying carbon taxes to fight carbon dioxide emissions would be about as sufficient as trying to fix a car that won't start by changing the rear wheel. Carbon taxes are a sick trick being played on the group by a group of greedy scam artists. Paying a tax makes the environment better? Since when? Even if that tax money went to pay habitancy to plant trees or invest in renewable power explore and amelioration (which it doesn't) it would not likely make a noticeable or great dissimilarity to the betterment of our environment or our ability to sustain a non-changing climate. But since Co2 is not behind climate change at all, there is precisely no imagine that any person should pay taxes on carbon emissions. If such carbon tax legislation ever does pass, I hope that every person will stand together in protest of them and refuse to pay such ludicrous fees.

Many will accuse habitancy who have done explore into the global warming scam to be anti-environment, encouraging pollution, supporting big oil, or a plethora of other things. I personally have been accused of "enjoying toxic air pollution and supporting the scourge of cancer" after speaking out about the truth behind the whole man made climate change scam. For some reason, which I imagine might be television and mainstream media mind programming, habitancy make a relationship that links habitancy who are skeptical of man made global warming ("climate change deniers") to encouraging pollution. To make this perfectly clear, there is no such connection. Co2 isn't causing temperature changes but that doesn't mean you should run your car more often or quit recycling. I am in full sustain of exploring new clean renewable power sources and good waste administration and disposal.




best ice crusher Sanus 60 Inch Tilt Mount

Friday, November 18, 2011

How To Hire Applicants Who 'Fit In' Your Organizational Culture

How To Hire Applicants Who 'Fit In' Your Organizational Culture


Pre-employment tests clearly tell you if a job applicant could 'fit in' your company's culture. But, you must carry out an important step. Specifically, pre-employment tests first need to be benchmarked for each job in your company. For instance, let's say you want to hire great sales reps. Start by having some of your sales reps take the pre-employment test. Use this to find the "benchmark" or typical test scores of your best sales reps. Then, test applicants. Applicants who gets test scores similar to your best sales reps have a good likelihood of -

a. Being productive workers
b. 'fitting in' your company's culture

Examples of Pre-Employment Test Benchmarks Revealing Organizational Culture

The pre-employment tests I created are used by many companies. So, in my consulting work, I show the way huge numbers of benchmarking studies to help companies hire the best. The benchmark study uses two pre-employment tests:

1. Behavior Test - to forecast 5 personality traits, 3 interpersonal styles, and 5 motivators
2. Cognitive ability Test - to forecast 5 thinking abilities or brainpower

Here are examples of pre-employment test benchmarks revealing companies' cultures.

1st Example = Friendly, Service-Focused company Culture
One company using pre-employment tests from me benchmarked many of its jobs. In every job, the company's best employees got these test scores:

* high scores on test's Friendliness, Teamwork, Optimism, and Helping population scales
* low scores on test's Aggressiveness, Rigidity, and Power Motivation scales

The benchmarks clearly retell that company's corporate culture.
The test helps that company consistently hire productive employees who 'fit in' its friendly aid culture.

2nd Example = Knowledge-Driven company Culture
Another company sells cutting-edge technology. Its growth inherent is huge - but only if it hires the right sales reps.

In the benchmarking study, I found the company's finest sales reps consistently got -

* high scores on test's learning Motivation and Problem-Solving ability scales
* low scores on test's Money Motivation and Creativity Motivation scales

The test's benchmark scores stunned the company's Vp-Sales. He mistakenly opinion his best sales reps were creative and pay motivated. But, actually, the best ones excelled at (a) learning about the technology plus (b) intelligently problem-solving ways the technology would help prospective client control more profitably.

Wow. The pre-employment test benchmark scores were an eye-opener - and much separate than test scores of commission-driven salespeople.

These pre-employment tests enabled that company to peer into applicants' minds - to retell which applicants would 'fit in' its knowledge-driven culture.

3rd Example = Perfectionistic, Obsessive-Compulsive company Culture
Another pre-employment test client of mine also had me test its best employees in many jobs, so it could hire applicants with the top probability of (a) 'fitting in' its culture and (b) being very productive workers.

Again, pre-employment test benchmark scores revealed that company's culture was ultra-perfectionistic. In every job, the best employees' benchmark test scores included -

* high test scores on Following Rules, Fact-Focus, and Handling Small Details scales
* low test scores on Flexibility and Emotion-Focus scales

Clearly, this company's culture relied on employees being obsessive-compulsive.

When that company hired applicants who got pre-employment test scores similar to its best employees, it hired winners - productive employees who 'fit in' the company's culture. But, when it hired employees who got test scores separate than its best employees, they failed on-the-job.

Warning: 3 Ways Applicants Trick You In Job Interviews

The problem with interviewing job applicants is this: Most interviewers make mistaken judgments about applicants they interview. study backs up this assertion. Here are conniving ways applicants trick interviewers:

1. Trained how to job-hunt - so applicant knows good answers to your interview questions
2. Study your company - so they act like they have what you want
3. Charm - so interviewer gets 'carried away' with involving applicant

Oops: 8 Ways Managers Hire The Wrong Person

Plus, interviewers and hiring managers make many dumb mistakes - resulting in mistakenly thinking a lousy applicant is a good applicant. Here are five ways interviewers make dumb mistakes:

1. Gives away 'good' answers - tells applicant what interviewer is seeing for
2. Blabbermouth - talks too much - tells applicant what interviewer wants to hear
3. Desperate - interviewer wants to hire someone Now
3. Lazy - hiring owner too lazy to find more and better applicants
5. Bullheaded - 'wants to hire whom s/he wants to hire' - despite warning signs

Interviewers also make three dumb mistakes when it comes to pre-employment testing:

6. Wrong Norms - uses national norms - rather than company customized benchmarks
7. Fails to Test Applicant - thus does not have most accurate, revealing evaluation
8. Ignores Test - bets against company's custom-tailored benchmark scores

Pre-Employment Tests Make It Easy To Hire Employees Who 'Fit In' Your Company'S Culture

Fact: Each time you hire someone you are betting. You bet your occupation and your company's financial success.

Pre-employment tests using customized benchmarks for your company's jobs make your bets easier, cheaper, faster, and more likely to succeed. Tests objectively tell you if an applicant (a) 'fits in' your organizational culture and (b) has work-related qualities similar to your good employees. Job interviews seldom tell you these important, profit-impacting insights.

You get such profit-improving insights from correctly researched, benchmarked pre-employment tests.




Tassimo Coffee Maker House Blend Coffee

Thursday, October 13, 2011

2010 Fantasy Baseball Sleepers

2010 Fantasy Baseball Sleepers


It bothers me when a website or magazine or talk radio mentions their fantasy baseball sleeper list and it contains players like a Brandon Webb, or Joey Votto or Jose Reyes on it. Those players are not what you would classify as sleepers. Those type of players are population that you expect to have a escape season or someone that was hurt the previous year and are startling to bounce back in 2010.

To me, a sleeper is someone that does not have a lot of value heading into the season, or is in the minor leagues and will be up in the major leagues soon, or somebody that in an Al or Nl only format is going to be able to help your team.

As your fantasy baseball auction or draft comes to a close, here are a few players to keep in the back of your mind as some the top 2010 fantasy baseball sleepers by position.

C - Jason Castro (Astros) - only has Humberto Quintero in front of him.
1B - Logan Morrison (Marlins) - could post similar numbers to James Loney of 2009.
2B - Chris Getz (Royals) - good end game play in American League only format for his stolen bases
Ss - Starlin Castro (Cubs) - long shot for 2010 but could push Ryan Theriot to second base.
3B - Chad Tracy (Cubs) - first base / third base flexibility means he should get 250-300 at bats.
Of- Jim Edmonds (Brewers) - chance he platoons if Carlos Gomez falters.
Sp- Felipe Paulino (Astros) - has the chance to snatch the 5th starter spot from Brian Moehler.
Sp - Hector Rondon (Indians) - the Indians rotation is a mess and he has excellent control in the minor leagues.
Rp - Kris Medlen (Braves) - only a few bad starts by Kenshin Kawakami away from being the 5th starter.

Sandisk 32 GB Extreme SDHC Cards