pricestar8

Go to site to get a better display The Deplorable Climate Science Blog "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman Skip to content Home 100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering All Temperature Adjustments Monotonically Increase Alterations To Climate Data Biggest Fraud In Science History Climate Racketeering CRU Temperature Fraud CU Sea Level Fraud Disappearing Glaciers Fitting An Elephant GHCN Code Glacial Retreat Before 1910 Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud Hansen Confirmed The MWP In 1981 History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts NASA Doubling Warming Since 2001 NASA Hiding The Decline NASA Hiding The Decline In Sea Level And Temperature NASA Sea Level Fraud NASA/CRU Southern Hemisphere Temperature Fraud NOAA Global Temperature Fraud NOAA US Temperature Fraud NOAA’s US Climate Extremes Index Is Fraudulent NSIDC Busted! Reducing CO2 – To Save The Climate The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick The 52% Consensus The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History The Government Knew The NASA Temperature Record Is Garbage West Antarctic Collapse Scam The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970. Climatologists blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on the global cooling that was occurring. 14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal at Newspapers.com In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported the same thing, and said global cooling is inevitable. Science News March 1, 1975 3 Mar 1975, Page 10 – The Sedalia Democrat In 1989 Tom Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said Earth had cooled from 1921 to 1979. 7 Dec 1989, Page 14 – Santa Cruz Sentinel at Newspapers.com NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) * — Welcome In 1981, NASA reported about 0.2C warming from 1921 to 1979. Challenge_chapter2.pdf But by 1999, NASA had changed the 1921 to 1979 cooling which Tom Karl reported into almost 0.3C warming, and had erased most of the 1940 to 1970 cooling. 1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf By 2001, NASA had increased the fake 1921 to 1979 warming to more than 0.3C, had further erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999. Fig.A.ps NASA now shows 0.5C warming from 1921 to 1979, have completely erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and show 1.1C warming from 1880 to 1999. They more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their 2001 graph. graph.png (1130×600) The next image overlays the 2016 NASA graph on top of Hansen’s 1981 NASA graph, at the same scale on both axes. It shows how NASA has cooled the past far outside their own blue error bars. This indicates that they do not understand their own data and are not doing science. Summarizing : NASA has completely erased the post-1940 cooling. They turned Tom Karl’s 1921-1979 cooling into 0.5C warming, and have more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their own 2001 temperature graph. Malfeasance like this in most professions would have serious consequences for the perpetrators. The NASA temperature record is wildly unsupportable garbage. Unfortunate that clueless people like Steven Mosher and Brian Cox believe it is gospel truth. Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Subscribe to my posts January 2017 M T W T F S S « Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Recent Posts Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 Washington Post Fast Start For Fake News In 2017 Why Temperature Fraud Matters The Actual Greenland Global Warming Is The Biggest Fraud In Science History Archives January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 January 2015 Recent Comments Morgan Wright on The Actual Greenland Tom G on Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 Landscapegenius on Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 ron on Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 Greybeard on Arctic Sea Ice The Same Thickness As 1940 Categories Uncategorized Meta Register Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org The Deplorable Climate Science Blog Proudly powered by WordPress.

To Disarm North Korea, Wage Trade War On China Gordon G. Chang , CONTRIBUTOR I write about Asia, especially the Chinese economy. Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House told the Trump transition team that North Korea was, in the words of the paper, the “top national security priority” for the incoming administration. Virtually every American analyst agrees on what Trump should do to meet the No. 1 threat: drop his plans of confronting China on trade to obtain its assistance on “denuclearizing” the Kim regime. China features prominently in the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who accuses the country of stealing American jobs and cheating at global trade. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) This line of thinking is not new and ignores 13 years of American foreign policy failure. In fact, it’s possible the opposite is true, that waging a trade war on China may be the only way to obtain Beijing’s cooperation on North Korea. IndianaVoice Once-Renowned Car Factory Becomes Hotbed Of Tech Research, Lifts Small City It’s not hard to see why the outgoing administration thinks the North is such a danger. At this time, Kim Jong Un, the regime’s unstable ruler, can press a button and send three types of missiles to the lower 48 states, the Taepodong-2; the road-mobile KN-08; and the KN-08 variant, the KN-14. Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center thinks the KN-14 might be able to reach Washington, D.C. The consensus is that North Korea cannot mate a nuclear warhead to these launchers, but in, say, four years, it will have that capability as well. The North already possesses a nuke that fits atop its Nodong intermediate-range missile, which can travel a little under a thousand miles. Recommended by Forbes MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State TRENDING ON FACEBOOK "Fake News" And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking... How did North Korea, one of the world’s most destitute states, develop its nukes and missiles in the face of opposition of virtually all the international community? The simple answer is that Presidents Obama and Bush relentlessly pursued ineffective policies. With the regrettable exception of about a month in early 2012, when his negotiators crafted the misguided Leap Day deal, Obama practiced a policy of “strategic patience,” not talking to the North Koreans until they showed good faith. At the same time, Washington worked with Beijing to impose sanctions as the North detonated four nuclear devices during the president’s eight years. That Obama policy was an understandable reaction to Bush’s failed efforts. The 43rd president, placing a higher priority on integrating China into the international system than disarming the North, gave Beijing a lead role in multilateral negotiations, the so-called Six-Party talks. Instead of helping to craft a solution, Beijing used its central position to give the North Koreans the one thing they needed most to make themselves a real menace, time. Kim Jong Il, the father of the current ruler in Pyongyang, stalled the talks so that he could conduct his regime’s first test of an atomic device. That occurred in October 2006, in the middle of then-ongoing negotiations. With a new administration taking office in January, there will undoubtedly be a new North Korea policy, but China is still seen as the key to a solution. Said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to the Wall Street Journal, “I see little reason to think a combination of sanctions and diplomacy will deter North Korea” unless Trump gains Beijing’s assistance. To gain that assistance, Jane Perlez of the New York Times wrote on Friday that Trump may have “to prioritize security over trade in his dealings with China.” She paraphrased Yang Xiyu, a former mid-level Chinese official, this way: “With the right approach, he could find a willing partner in Beijing.” There has been no “willing partner” or “right approach” this century. Despite—or maybe because of—American attempts to seek cooperation, China has played a duplicitous game. This spring, for instance, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security charged that Beijing had not interrupted the flow of items from China for the North’s bomb programs, such as cylinders of uranium hexafluoride, vacuum pumps, and valves. That’s not all. After the imposition of the U.N.’s March 2 sanctions, Beijing both allowed blacklisted North Korean vessels to visit Chinese ports and busted the new rules with its trade in coal and jet fuel. Now, China’s commerce with North Korea appears to have returned to pre-March levels. And the China-North Korea cooperation may be even more sinister. The submarine-launched ballistic missile North Korea tested on August 24 resembles China’s JL-1. Until recently, Washington imposed no cost on China for its blatant support of North Korea’s weaponization. On September 26, however, the Treasury Department added Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. Ltd., its owner, and three employees to its list of Specially Designated Nationals. By doing so, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the listed parties. Treasury did not explain its designations, the first secondary sanctions on China, but Joshua Stanton of the One Free Korea site told me the parties were listed for laundering Pyongyang’s money. On the same day, the Justice Department announced the unsealing of indictments of the same four individuals and Hongxiang for various crimes including the laundering of funds through the U.S. financial system for North Korea. Moreover, Justice initiated civil forfeiture actions to recover money in 25 Chinese bank accounts but did not impose any sanctions on the financial institutions themselves. The decision to not go after the banks looks like a mistake as they have been deeply involved in the North’s illicit dealings. North Korea looks impossible to solve, and it is if we see China as on our side. It is not. But if we treat China as part of the problem, which it most certainly is, then we can begin to craft solutions, like secondary sanctions. Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, will stop supporting North Korea only when the costs of doing so are too high. So far, his country has suffered almost no penalty. To impose costs, Trump’s administration could, among other things, cut offending Chinese banks off from the global financial system, sanction every Chinese proliferator, and impose his threatened 45% across-the-board tariff on China’s goods. He could end negotiations on the Bilateral Investment Treaty and treat Chinese businesses like Beijing treats American ones. And Mr. Trump, starting January 20, will have the tools to raise the costs on Beijing. The Chinese will surely retaliate, but they have few effective options for a long-term struggle. After all, last year they ran a $334.1 billion trade surplus in goods and services against the United States. Trade-surplus countries are vulnerable in trade wars, and that is especially true of a China with an already fragile economy that is dependent on the American market. A more coercive American approach may not work, but the current set of policies, in place for two decades, are guaranteed to fail. They have resulted in an even more irresponsible Beijing and a nuked-up Kim regime. So it’s time for fresh approaches, perhaps even to wage that trade war with China, not just to protect the jobs of American workers and the profits of American businesses but the lives of American citizens. Follow me on Twitter @GordonGChang and on Forbes. And find much more here. Comment on this story Report Corrections Reprints & Permissions

7,256 VIEWS Is Trump Responsible For China's Cash Squeeze? Gordon G. Chang , CONTRIBUTOR I write about Asia, especially the Chinese economy. Friday, the National Development and Reform Commission said Beijing will liberalize foreign investment rules for banking, securities, fund management, futures, and insurance. Beijing will also ease regulations relating to production of shale gas. The NDRC said services will be opened up too, with investment permitted in accounting, auditing, architecture, and financial ratings. Foreign access will be widened for infrastructure. The NDRC announcement followed a Thursday statement from the State Council, issued after a meeting chaired by Premier Li Keqiang, that foreigners will be allowed greater access to the manufacturing sector, particularly the transportation equipment, motorbike, ethanol, and edible fats and oils areas. Beijing until recently has been resistant to opening up areas to foreign investment, something evident in the stalled negotiations with the Obama administration over China’s “negative list” to be incorporated in the proposed Bilateral Investment Treaty. The sharp turnaround in Beijing’s attitude comes amid a falloff in foreign direct investment into China. China’s Commerce Ministry on Monday said it expected FDI to hit 785 billion yuan for 2016, marginally up from 2015’s 781.4 billion yuan. In dollar terms, however, investment declined sharply as the Chinese currency fell 6.95% against the greenback last year. It appears that FDI faltered in the final months of 2016. This trend would be a natural consequence of not only slowing growth and a deteriorating environment for foreign business but also recent efforts to restrict outbound payments by foreign corporates. Recommended by Forbes MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State TRENDING ON FACEBOOK "Fake News" And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking... Beijing is now bracing itself for steeper declines in FDI this year. And although Chinese leaders have no one to blame but themselves, they are beginning to identify a scapegoat. Chinese state media last week previewed a narrative—the U.S. is responsible for China’s economic problems—when the Global Timestabloid said President-elect Donald Trump will hamper China’s efforts to attract foreign direct investment. China’s charge, of course, is ludicrous, but declining FDI aggravates a critical problem. The reduction of investment into China means net capital outflow in 2016 will approach the preceding year’s recording-breaking amount. Beijing-based J Capital Research estimated net capital outflow to be $910.9 billion in 2015. Bloomberg calculated $1 trillion. Analysts are waiting to see how much outflow there will be this month. Today, January 1, the annual quota for an individual’s conversion of renminbi into foreign currency—$50,000—resets. Many, therefore, expect China’s 1.4 billion people to convert as much yuan as they can to avoid a further diminution in wealth, thereby causing a cash squeeze. There may not be that much renminbi converted, however. China International Capital Corp., an investment bank controlled by Beijing, thinks the Chinese central government might “throw sand in the gears” of purchases of foreign currency. As Bloomberg reports, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange will require additional documentation for purchases and will instruct banks to more closely watch these transactions. Moreover, Victor Shih of the University of California at San Diego tells me that Beijing has issued new rules governing the quota. The rules now do not allow individuals to buy foreign exchange for purposes of hedging currency exposure. These measures, in a general sense, are a continuation of old tactics. SAFE has been informally restricting individual purchases of forex since at least the fall of 2015. CICC, as the Chinese investment bank is known, also suggested that Beijing might resort to far more drastic actions, such as repealing the yearly $50,000 individual forex quota altogether. Such a move would be devastating, and so is the “nuclear option.” Some Chinese insiders urge a large, sudden devaluation. Beijing on August 11, 2015 lowered its daily reference rate 1.9% from the previous fix, the biggest one-day drop on record. A large deval, which will undoubtedly be bigger than the last one, looks inevitable because the country’s reserves are now falling fast due to Beijing’s defense of the currency. Yet it’s unlikely Chinese technocrats will move boldly on the eve of President Xi Jinping’s visit to Davos this month, the first time a Chinese leader has attended. The problem for Beijing, however, is that holders of renminbi might—and should—interpret Xi’s going to Davos as a negative for the currency. The narrative so far is that his trip to the Swiss resort is another sign of his country’s inexorable rise. As Kerry Brown of King’s College told the Financial Times, his visit “demonstrates just how much ambition China has to the outside world now.”Brown also believes Xi’s “attendance at Davos would be looked at as a sign that China is starting to fill space being potentially vacated by the U.S. under Trump.” Europe needs to get over the president-elect if it is to understand the motivation for Xi’s participation in the gathering in the Swiss mountains. The Chinese leader surely views his travel out of Beijing to see corporate chieftains as a humiliation. Chinese autocrats, after all, place great significance on which party travels to a meeting. In all probability, Xi is undertaking the journey out of necessity, to reassure a jittery world about China. In short, Xi is now the country’s salesman-in-chief, looking for your cash to replace the capital now leaving his. Follow me on Twitter @GordonGChang and on Forbes. And find much more here.

That’s a big “if” when many of the groups already have a heavy complement of Iranian advisers and equipment, leading to allegations that Quds Force commander Qasem Suleimani is orchestrating Iraq’s war on ISIS. Indeed, Suleimani taunts the U.S. on social media, but Townsend does not allow himself to be baited. Townsend is relentlessly circumspect. “They [the Iranians] are advising the PMF because no one else is,” Townsend said. “They are a neighbor of Iraq's. They are a fact of life here. I can’t do much about it.” He, and other senior western officials who asked to remain anonymous, hold on to the hope that Iraq’s desire for independence will trump Iran’s ability to act as puppeteer. “Not all Iraqi Shia align with Iran. There are plenty of nationalists that see Iran as… a competitor,” Townsend said. As for Iranians and American military advisers on the battlefield? “They stay over there, and we stay over here," he said. “I try not to let them trouble me.” *** Iraq’s Deputy National Security Advisor Safa al-Sheikh said some of the militias had been somewhat difficult to control, which is all the more reason to bring them under the Iraqi government’s legal umbrella, he said. “It’s important to have a law, in order to contain the popular mobilization units, to put them [under] discipline,” he said in an interview at his office inside the Iraqi government’s heavily defended Green Zone. He said there were tens of thousands of minorities who also made up militia groups under the government’s control, adding that “the PMF has been misinterpreted outside Iraq.” That especially applies to groups like K’tab Hezbollah and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), which are advised by the Iranian military. “There is a great influence of Iran on them. There is some influence of the Iraqi government on them, and there is a good degree of self interest” driving their actions, Safa said. Disciplining members who step out of line will be a challenge, he said. K’tab Hezbollah and AAH are believed to hold the bulk of the illegally detained prisoners, according to human rights, Western and Iraqi officials who all spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject. Safa said the Iraqi government had not been able to verify the existence of the secret detention facilities, but authorities did find evidence of other abuses. “We have heard about the detention facilities, but we could never verify these numbers in these reports,” he said. “However they could find violations that happened including killing of some of the detainees—more than 10 people in one incident,” after the battle to drive ISIS out of Fallujah. He said that that particular case was attributed to the individual seeking revenge because his brother had been killed, but he did not offer further details. “Bottom line, it was not a policy by the groups,” he said. Safa said the Iraqi government is considering a post-ISIS plan that would see Iraq’s mostly Shiite army withdrawn from all the cities, especially non-Shiite ones, so as not to cause friction with the local population which he says is what contributed to the rise of ISIS in Mosul and throughout Sunni-majority Anbar Province. In their place, PMF forces that came from the towns they would patrol would back up local police as a sort of reserve force. *** “Why have them?” said Kurdish Foreign Minister Falah Mustafa. “We should have invested in the Iraqi army. Not have a force from one sect. "Are we going to the Islamization of this country? Are we going to see the majority set aside the minorities?" he asked. In an interview with The Daily Beast, Mustafa said that while Kurds “appreciate the sacrifices of some of those who have come to help protect Baghdad and the country,” not all of the groups are disciplined. “This will create a problem for the future of Iraq,” he said. Mustafa griped that while the militia groups will now be paid by the Iraqi government, his Peshmerga forces had to be funded by the Pentagon—to the tune of $450 million for his roughly 180,000 volunteers. U.S. Forces work closely with the Peshmerga as they do with the Iraqi army, but they do not advise the militia groups. *** Back in the hospital, the newly legal status of the mostly Shiite PMF groups doesn't sit well with the injured militiamen from Mosul who have no hope of receiving pay or benefits from the Iraqi government. “If anything happens to me, no one will take care of my family,” one of the fighters said. From their perspective the money just goes to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. But even more telling, in their view, is the way the U.S.-led coalition doles out critical support during combat. Just before they were attacked, they say, four Humvees with Americans in them had been observing them from a distance. When they came under fire, they say, the Americans quickly drove away rather than helping them the way they have seen the American soldiers do for the Peshmerga. U.S. military advisors have been ordered to stay out of the front lines by the White House, except in the rare special operations missions accompanying elite Iraqi or Kurdish forces on a specific raid or operation. But from the point of view of the wounded fighters of the Knights of Ninewa, the Americans should have helped. "They just left us," one said. Worse, they think the new incoming Trump administration will work with the Shiite government to keep them down. "Trump is going to raze the Muslim world," one of them said, to nods all around. —Saud Murrani contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Bawar Ihsan contributed reporting from Erbil.

The earth shook three times with the impact of air strikes targeting Islamic State positions north of Mosul. Only then did the Iraqi troops assembled on the edge of the small farming village advance. The army had gathered on Friday afternoon in a muddy street that showed signs of heavy fighting with the jihadists from a day earlier: store fronts shorn off, electricity poles pulled down, bullet casings carpeting the ground. A rooftop sentinel kept watch. The Iraqis' tan-colored Humvees, reinforced with steel plates around the wheels to guard against sniper fire, were dwarfed by four MRAPs (mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles) manned by U.S. military advisers. The second phase of the operation to retake Mosul, Islamic State's last major stronghold in Iraq, began on Thursday after several weeks of deadlock in the most complex operation in the country since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Conventional U.S. forces deploying more extensively in this phase are now visible very close to the front lines. They are backing Iraq's army, federal police and counter-terrorism service (CTS), whose levels of training and experience vary widely. Since the offensive began 10 weeks ago, CTS punched into Mosul from the east and took a quarter of the city, but regular army troops like those in Sada have made slower progress advancing from the north and south, slowing the operation. MARGINAL ADVANTAGE Western officials from a coalition providing air support, training and advice to the Iraqi military have hailed the recovery of the army and police, which dropped their weapons and fled Islamic State's blitz across a third of the country in 2014 despite billions of dollars in U.S. support. "They don't have to be as good as us, they just have to be better than Daesh," one U.S. military official told Reuters earlier this year, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State. That marginal advantage, though, means the Mosul campaign is likely to drag on for many months and could wreak significant destruction. During earlier battles like the one in Ramadi a year ago, coalition officials said they often had to prod the Iraqis to advance rather than wait for aerial bombardment to eliminate all enemy positions. The Iraqi commanders in Sada huddled with the Americans for a few minutes on Friday, and after the third air strike piled into their vehicles. Half a dozen Humvees charged ahead, firing mounted machine guns and a rocket-propelled grenade. As the sound of gunfire pierced the clear blue sky, the U.S. vehicles followed them down the road and appeared to establish overwatch positions in an adjacent field. "The Americans came this morning. They are for guidance and direction only," said one Iraqi soldier, a bandoleer hanging around his shoulders. "They don't enter combat. They will turn and have our backs." Behind the Americans came a dozen more Iraqi Humvees, some of whose occupants fired wildly as they advanced. One soldier standing in the bed of a military truck lost balance and nearly tumbled out when the vehicle lurched forward. Army officers said intelligence suggested about 30 Islamic State fighters were holed up inside the village with two car bombs and a truck bomb and were using tunnels between houses and into agricultural areas to furtively resupply or launch attacks. Inside Sada, reporters saw the bodies of a dozen Islamic State fighters the army said were killed in earlier clashes. A soldier held up the severed head of one, an expression of shock still on its face. (Reporting By Stephen Kalin; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

1.2k Shares Member Options Sign up | Sign In In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold. Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing. “Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.” William Happer Despite harsh criticism of their contrarian views, a few scientists like Happer and Curry have pointed to evidence that global warming is less pronounced than predicted. They have also argued that this slighter warming would bring positive developments along with problems. For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way. President-elect Donald Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” has chosen for key cabinet posts men whom the global warming establishment considers lapdogs of the oil and gas industry: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run the Energy Department; Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma to run the Environmental Protection Agency; and Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. But while general policy may be set at the cabinet level, significant and concrete changes would likely be spelled out below those three – among the very bureaucrats the Trump transition team might have had in mind when, in a move some saw as intimidation, it sent a questionnaire to the Energy Department this month (later disavowed) trying to determine who worked on global warming. It isn’t certain that federal employees working in various environmental or energy sector-related agencies would willingly implement rollbacks of regulations, let alone a redirection of scientific climate research, but the latter prospect heartens the skeptical scientists. They cite an adage: You only get answers to the questions you ask. “In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, a longtime government consultant who has closely tracked climate research spending since 1992. If a federal agency wants models that focus on potential sea-level rise, for example, it can order them up. But it can also shift the focus to how warming might boost crop yields or improve drought resistance. While it could take months for such expanded fields of research to emerge, a wider look at the possibilities excites some scientists. Happer, for one, feels emboldened in ways he rarely has throughout his career because, for many years, he knew his iconoclastic climate conclusions would hurt his professional prospects. When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, he said: “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.” That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers. Nevertheless, new organizations like the CO2Coalition, founded in 2015, suggest the debate is more evenly matched intellectually than is commonly portrayed. In addition to Happer, the CO2 Coalition’s initial members include scholars with ties to world-class institutions like MIT, Harvard and Rockefeller University. The coalition also features members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorology Society, along with policy experts from the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and Tufts University’s Fletcher School. With such voices joining in, the debate over global warming might shift. Until now, it’s normally portrayed as enlightened scholars vs. anti-science simpletons. A more open debate could shift the discussion to one about global warming’s extent and root causes. Should a scientific and research funding realignment occur, it could do more than shatter what some see as an orthodoxy stifling free inquiry. Bjorn Lomborg, who has spent years analyzing potential solutions to global warming, believes that a more expansive outlook toward research is necessary because too much government funding has become expensive and ineffective corporate welfare. Although not a scientist, Lomborg considers climate change real but not cataclysmic. Bjorn Lomborg “Maybe now we’ll have a smarter conversation about what actually works,” Lomborg told RealClearInvestigations. “What has been proposed costs a fortune and does very little. With more space opening up, we can invest more into research and development into green energy. We don’t need subsidies to build something. They’ve been throwing a lot of money at projects that supposedly will cut carbon emissions but actually accomplish very little. That’s not a good idea. The funding should go to universities and research institutions; you don’t need to give it to companies to do it.” Such new opportunities might, in theory, calm a field tossed by acrimony and signal a détente in climate science. Yet most experts are skeptical that a kumbaya moment is at hand. The mutual bitterness instilled over the years, the research money at stake, and the bristling hostility toward Trump’s appointees could actually exacerbate tensions. “I think that the vast ‘middle’ will want and seek a more collegial atmosphere,” Georgia Tech’s Curry told RealClearInvestigations. “But there will be some hardcore people (particularly on the alarmed side) whose professional reputation, funding, media exposure, influence etc. depends on cranking up the alarm.” Michael E. Mann, another climate change veteran, is also doubtful about a rapprochement. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and author of the “hockey stick” graph, which claims a sharp uptick in global temperatures over the past century, believes ardently that global warming is a dire threat. He concluded a Washington Post op-ed this month with this foreboding thought: “The fate of the planet hangs in the balance.” Mann acknowledges a brutal war of words has engulfed climate science. But in an e-mail exchange with RealClearInvestigations, he blamed opponents led by “the Koch brothers” for the polarization. Michael Mann Mann did hint, however, there may be some room for discussion. “In that poisonous environment it is difficult to have the important, more nuanced and worthy debate about what to do about the problem,” he wrote. “There are Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Inglis and George Shultz trying to create space for that discussion, and that gives me hope. But given that Donald Trump is appointing so many outright climate deniers to key posts in this administration, I must confess that I – and many of my fellow scientists – are rather concerned.” Neither side of the debate has been immune from harsh and sinister attacks. Happer said he stepped down from the active faculty at Princeton in part “to deal with all this craziness.” Happer and Mann, like several other climate scientists, have gotten death threats. They provided RealClearInvestigations with some of the e-mails and voice messages they have received. “You are an educated Nazi and should hang from the neck,” a critic wrote Happer in October 2014. “You and your colleagues who have promoted this scandal ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families,” one e-mailed Mann in Dec. 2009. Similar threats have bedeviled scientists and writers across the climate research spectrum, from Patrick Michaels, a self-described “lukewarmer” who dealt with death threats at the University of Virginia before moving to the Cato Institute, to Rajendra Pachauri, who protested anonymous death threats while heading the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Putting such ugliness aside, some experts doubt that the science will improve even if the Trump administration asks new research questions and funding spreads to myriad proposals. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us. “I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.” The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change. “Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

Those who know little of science and how science is performed now little about global warming even though they think they know a lot more. What is most misunderstood is how politicized science has become. >A major driving force in this comes from the scarcity of money. Back in the 1980's when I was getting my start, the NSF had a funding rate of around 35% for those grant applications deemed "meritable" (good enough to warrant funding) so those deemed "meritable" were prioritized based on some criteria.>Today that funding rate is well below 20% and the government has made it known that global warming is very important such that if you do not provide a grant to show how global warming does whatever, then you stand little chance of receiving money. This means that to obtain research grants today, you must start with the assumption that global warming is real and go from there.>The reason for all of this is that the various governments that are largely dominated by the Left need global warming to be real in order to accomplish their goals. By creating the crisis of global warming, they can create policies and such that the public would normally never accept without any backlash. >In order for this to work, however, they also had to sabotage various scientific groups and agencies. So, for example, Hansen was appointed to head up NASA specifically because he supported global warming and rode roughshod over his researchers by forcing them to either publish material in support of global warming or become unemployed. Organizations such as the Americal Physical Society has almost suffered a revolt between those, the majority, who do not support the extreme claims of the warmists and the few politically connected at the top who wrote the public statement claiming that the APS supported global warming.>What makes all of this worse is how those who disagree with the official line of global warming are immediately attacked. They have their finances investigated in an effort to show how they are compromised and recipients of money from "bad" sources, they are pilloried in the press, they have their livelihoods threatened, and worse. While all of this is going on, no one bothers to ask the question as to why any of this behavior would be condoned or even performed if global warming was in fact real?>The fact of the matter is that man has had an effect on the climate. With 7 billion people living here, it has to happen. The question that is not being talked about is how much of an effect does man have and the answer to that is "near zero". Another fact not talked about is how our living standard, our long lifespans, our ability to even feed 7 billion people, and so many other characteristics of our modern world, are totally dependent upon cheap energy ando once the cost of energy starts to rise significantly, all of this will start coming down.>It is well past time that we stop this American form of Lysenkoism and start allowing science to be performed by scientists without politics entering into the fray. Perhaps then we will get some real answers. Today all we seem to get are ignorant people stating ignorant opinions while acting as though they are absolute experts and trashing anyone who disagrees no matter how right or wrong they are.

Mysterious illness tied to marijuana use on the rise in states with legal weed 0 JONATHAN LAPOOK CBS NEWS Dec 28, 2016 6:59 PM EST NEW YORK -- For more than two years, Lance Crowder was having severe abdominal pain and vomiting, and no local doctor could figure out why. Finally, an emergency room physician in Indianapolis had an idea. info CBS News “The first question he asked was if I was taking hot showers to find relief. When he asked me that question, I basically fell into tears because I knew he had an answer,” Crowder said. The answer was cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, or CHS. It’s caused by heavy, long-term use of various forms of marijuana. For unclear reasons, the nausea and vomiting are relieved by hot showers or baths. “They’ll often present to the emergency department three, four, five different times before we can sort this out,” said Dr. Kennon Heard, an emergency room physician in Aurora, Colorado. info CBS News He co-authored a study showing that since 2009, when medical marijuana became widely available, emergency room visits diagnoses for CHS in two Colorado hospitals nearly doubled. In 2012, the state legalized recreational marijuana. “It is certainly something that, before legalization, we almost never saw,” Heard said. “Now we are seeing it quite frequently.” Outside of Colorado, when patients do end up in an emergency room, the diagnosis is often missed. Partly because doctors don’t know about CHS, and partly because patients don’t want to admit to using a substance that’s illegal. Play VIDEO Recreational marijuana measures pass in four states CHS can lead to dehydration and kidney failure, but usually resolves within days of stopping drug use. That’s what happened with Crowder, who has been off all forms of marijuana for seven months. “Now all kinds of ambition has come back. I desire so much more in life and, at 37 years old, it’s a little late to do it, but better now than never,”he said. CHS has only been recognized for about the past decade, and nobody knows exactly how many people suffer from it. But as more states move towards the legalization of marijuana, emergency room physicians like Dr. Heard are eager to make sure both doctors and patients have CHS on their radar. © 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email WhatsApp Play COMPLETE COVERAGE Marijuana Nation

It's hard to get your hopes up again it seems like there's always just a few more things to do.

← Understanding Progressive Thinking 100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century. The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows. Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article. The adjustments being correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.) The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database. When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves. Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data. Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon. This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS. NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted. NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record NOAA has always known that the US is not warming. U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

44IS get Christmas present Follow SHARE TWEET Coalition and Iraqi forces killed scores of Islamic State fighters in the battle for Mosul on Christmas Day during multiple, coordinated attacks on terrorist positions around the city. Iraq’s Joint Military Command said Monday that during three separate attacks on Sunday, the coalition troops were able to kill 97 Islamic State militants as the battle for Iraq’s second-largest city continues on. The fight to retake Mosul began in late October. At first, the advancement of Iraqi and coalition forces was swift, but the fighting has slowed as the battle has turned into block-by-block urban warfare, where both sides are inflicting heavy casualties on one another. Still, Islamic State forces are massively outnumbered. According to military estimates, 90,000 Iraqi, Kurdish Peshmerga, tribal militia and coalition forces have banded together in the battle to retake Mosul. The Islamic State has controlled the large city since 2014. As many as 100,000 Mosul citizens have been displaced since the fighting began two months ago and humanitarian groups estimate that more than one million could be displaced by the time fighting ends. From the Blase

A sum of 54 ISIL terrorists were killed and many more were injured in the Hezbollah Battalion's special operations. Meantime, seven DshK-equipped military vehicles of the ISIL terrorists were destroyed in Hezbollah's offensives. Also, the Iraqi volunteer forces' (Hashd al-Shaabi) artillery units pounded the ISIL's military positions in Southern Mosul city and to the North of Adayeh region, killing tens of the ISIL terrorists and destroying their DshK-equipped vehicles. Meantime, the Iraqi fighter jets destroyed the ISIL's suicide vehicles in al-Entesar region after being tipped off by intelligence sources. In a relevant development earlier on Saturday, the Iraqi volunteer forces repelled offensives by the ISIL terrorists on strategic Hamreen mountain in Diyala province. The ISIL started a series of attacks on Hashd al-Shaabi's military positions in Seyed Nareen region in Hamreen mountainous region in Diyala province on Saturday morning, but the Iraqi volunteer forces managed to push them back. The ISIL initially targeted Hashd al-Shaabi with mortar and rocket attacks before starting their ground attacks by using suicide cars. At least 18 ISIL terrorists were killed and wounded after several hours of fierce clashes with the Iraqi volunteer forces while tens of others fled the scene of the battle. The strategic Hamreen mountain stretch from Salahuddin to the neighboring Kirkuk and Diyala provinces. Some parts of Hamreen mountain, including those parts located near Alas and Dajil oilfields is under the ISIL's occupation. The desert area of the Western part of Samarra and the Eastern part of al-Sarsar lake, including al-Jazeera region are still under the ISIL's occupation despite Iraq's joint military forces' massive military operations. The ISIL terrorists are still present in the Western part of Diyala province neighboring Nineveh and al-Anbar provinces. Also on Wednesday, the Iraqi fighter jets pounded the gathering centers of the ISIL near the town of al-Haditha Westward of the city of al-Ramadi, killing several terrorists and destroying their military hardware, including an arms depot. At least 12 terrorists were killed in the Iraqi warplanes' raids on ISIL's military positions in al-Sokreh region in the Westerns part of Haditha town in Western al-Ramadi. The Iraqi air force also destroyed four vehicles of the ISIL terrorists in al-Sokreh region. The Iraqi fighter jets also pounded ISIL's vehicles to the West of al-Haditha, destroying three military vehicles. The Iraqi air force, meantime, raided ISIL's military vehicles in al-Raihana region in the town of Annah in Western al-Ramadi, destroying all of them and killing all the military personnel in the cars. The Iraqi forces also discovered an arms and ammunition depot in Albu Hays region North of al-Ramadi with bombs and 100 C4 packages. The Iraqi army and popular forces also found 85 bombs in Bu Jalib and al-Ankor regions West of al-Ramadi. The army defused all the bombs and explosives at the arms depot. Also on Monday, Nine ISIL terrorists were killed in an airstrike carried out by Iraqi army fighter jets West of Anbar, a source said. The source said Iraqi air force jets pounded an ISIL hideout in the village of Raihana in the town of Annah, killing nine militants inside, Al Sumeriya News reported. Meanwhile, Iraq's Defense Ministry said in a statement the warplanes targeted ISIL ammunition stacks and booby-trapping workshops in Okashat desert area, also in the west, as well as in al-Akra village in Haditha. ISIL militants still maintain holdouts at Western Anbar regions, most notably at the towns of Annah, Rawa and Qaem, launching from there occasional attacks on civilians and security forces who respond with airstrikes on the group’s locations relying on intelligence tips. Iraqi security forces, assisted by popular forces, have been struggling since October to drive ISIL militants out of towns they had captured in 2014.

It's never going to be anywhere near perfect over there. Unless something else explodes the first of the year looks good to me.

Hi I have the cash ready. I did a internet search and it said the seller has to go to post office and fill out a form and send package from there they have a automatic 1,000 insurance for use. contact me at pc837w6@gmail.com

I would be interested in a million. I can get a check ready after wensday of of next week. Thanks

Hello are you still selling. Would you be willing to do a COD. I have never done one so I went and checked it out on the Internet and it looked pretty safe for both party's I've been a member of DV for many years and a vip Pat

The bills are the same size as our dollars. It's about 3/16s longer. They are very hi tech, it has a clear window. I bet they would fit in our ATMs

Would you do a COD I would pay the extra cost. Get back with me. Your price is good I would pay alittle more. carrollpat75@yahoo.com

How much do you want

Hello I would be interested in the half mill please let me know thanks

Breitling talked up a stock that has gone down, over a year now. But I really like his emails. I have learned a lot from him.

AL-MALIKI will try and shut him up, I hope they offer this guy a deal and get the goods on Al-maliki and this goons.

I went to the web site and to subscribe to there services it's kind of price, Machine do you use this service. If so what kind of track record do you have. I was thinking I would order the Polnys 2020 gold index. But I'm more interested in silver.

Thanks

I used to post funny stuff but now when I try to post something from you tube it won't except the code. Is there a new rule about this.