Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.
Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.
The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by climate alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of these papers, for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on climate and weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation patterns.
The second position questions the allegedly “unprecedented” nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers suggested that these events fall within the range of natural variability, while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels.
The third position casts doubt upon the efficacy and reliability of computer climate models for projecting future climate states, suggesting that such predictions are “little more than speculation” given the enormous uncertainty and margins of error in a non-linear climate system with nearly infinite variables. Twenty-eight of the articles in question examined ...
Donald Trump Just Destroyed Michael Wolff’s Anti-Trump Smear Campaign
Today, though, Donald Trump put his own considerable powers of negotiation on full display as he allowed media cameras into the room during a lengthy bipartisan discussion on border security and immigration reform. No other President has done this in recent memory. Certainly not Barack Obama, whose public appearances were tightly scripted affairs in which his remarks were most often confined to a few paragraphs delivered to him by Valerie Jarrett’s office. The media was instructed on what questions could be asked, and those that were to be avoided. Any members of the media who did not follow the script were promptly punished. (Some even had their computers hacked into. See: Sharyl Attkisson)
It was a remarkable display of cooperative leadership that managed to be both tough and conciliatory and showed a president fully in control of the negotiation. Even some of Mr. Trump’s most consistent detractors were left with nothing more to say than...
‘The FBI was actively planning in a systematic way’ to plant stories against Trump
On Tuesday’s edition of “The Story with Martha MacCallum,” Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan (R) explained how the text messages show that “the FBI was actively planning in a systemic way” to plant stories in the Wall Street Journal and other places to trigger an investigation that would drag on and eventually, they hoped, bring down the Trump presidency.
“I leave that up to senator Feinstein and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.,” Jordan said in response to MacCallum’s question about Dianne Feinstein’s decision to release Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s closed-door testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. “What I do know and what I found most interesting about what I have been able to read thus far is the fact Glenn Simpson said Christopher Steele told him the FBI had another source. How did Christopher Steele know that? Did the FBI tell him? If they did, why is the FBI telling Christopher Steele, the guy who was paid by Fusion who was paid by the Clinton campaign, why is the FBI telling Christopher Steele they got another source on this whole Russia investigation? I think that is interesting and something we need to get to the bottom of.”
“Yeah it goes to the larger question of whether or not there was a coordinated effort between these intelligence agencies and, perhaps, including the FBI and the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, right?,” asked MacCallum.
“Exactly,” said Jordan. “And I think when you couple what Senator Feinstein released today with the story John Solomon wrote this morning on additional text messages we have now reviewed, where they talk about planting stories. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in their text message exchange talk about planting stories with...
Nearly 1,000 Years Old, the Bayeux Tapestry is An Epic Tale and Medieval Masterpiece
The ancient Bayeux Tapestry, famous for its epic representation of medieval history, is a long, vividly embroidered cloth stretching hundreds of feet. Through exciting imagery it retells the events leading up to the Norman conquest of England, including the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The artifact is almost 1,000 years old, yet the fabric remains sturdy and the exquisite threads have retained their rich color and vibrancy. However, the origins of the renowned tapestry remain a mystery, and through strange images it seems to communicate hidden messages to the viewer.
The Making of a Medieval Masterpiece
Believed to have been commissioned in the 1070s by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, half-brother to William the Conqueror, the piece relates the Norman conquest of England from the winner’s perspective and so above all, it is viewed as a Norman account of events.
Nothing is known for certain about the tapestry’s origins. There are several theories about who commissioned the work beyond Bishop Odo, such as contemporary abbots or even Edith of Wessex, wife of Edward the Confessor and sister of Harold II. The Latin captions on the linen tapestry match pieces originating in England at the time, and the type of vegetable dyes used in the cotton embroidery are the same as others woven there.
The stitching is of highest quality, indicating it might have been the skilled Anglo-Saxons, famous across Europe for their needlework, who were behind the exquisite and....
DEMS ADMIT THEY NEED ILLEGALS FOR THEIR VOTES
Democrats at the Left’s premier think tank have finally admitted in a leaked memo that illegal immigration is key to their party’s future electoral success.
Republicans may not be angels but they have never wielded compassion as a cudgel the way Democrats do. But this memo ought to end Democrats’ phony compassion shtick for all time. Power is the only thing that matters to them. They don’t care about America or Americans. They care only about winning. Honest observers have known this for years.
What did Democrats actually do this time to help solidify their image as the party of power over principle?
Specifically, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of the Center for American Progress, distributed a brief to allies Monday calling the so-called DREAMers, that is, illegal aliens brought to the country at a young age, a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the Daily Caller reports.
Democrats can’t win elections without cheating. They pushed the 1993 Motor-Voter law to make voter fraud easy to commit and difficult to prosecute. They oppose voter ID laws tooth-and-nail for the same reason. They changed immigration laws a long time ago so they could change the electorate by importing new voters.
That’s why left-wingers invented chain migration in the Sixties. It is a magic carpet that brings terrorists, public charges, and low- and no-skilled workers to the United States. Democrats rigged the game by modifying immigration law. The resultant tsunami of immigrants from authoritarian Third World countries over the past half century helped ...
Google’s New Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites
No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.
And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.
When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”
Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”
In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.
Big name publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are even given a...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)