This insidious epidemic must stop

There is a terrible disease racing across America, affecting liberals and Democrats. Can it be contained or is it yet another epidemic? Sanity is such a terrible thing to squander.

Unhinged: Liberals Suffering From Nightmares, Insomnia, Binge Eating Since Trump’s Victory

Derek Hunter — Daily Caller

Liberals across the country have been struck by nightmares and insomnia since Donald Trump won the presidency is November.

“I have not slept a full night since the election,” fashion designer Ariane Zurcher told Yahoo News, and she’s not alone.

President Trump is haunting the dreams of many Americans and is being blamed for lost sleep and weight gain.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/unhinged-liberals-suffering-nightmares-insomnia-binge-eating-since-trumps-victory/

 

It must be striking right at the heart of academia. What will they do? The diseease has been festering in certain populations for decades, in the margins. But now it’s gone mainstream. I don’t know which is worse the disease or all the related symptoms?

 

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

CFACT exposes GW gurus latest tactics

As Solomon said, there’s nothing new under the sun. Global Warming gurus roll out new program — which is a lot like their past ones — to Use kids.

Weather Channel goes Orwell

CFACT

Friend,

The Weather Channel released a video featuring kids lecturing their parents about global warming.

Just how much should we believe these children understand about the complexities of climate science?  Where did they get their information?

Indoctrinating children and using them to influence their parents is something right out of a dystopian novel.  It is a favored technique of tyrannical regimes of all stripes.

Here are some examples of the erroneous “facts” (and their refutations) recited by children in the video that Marc Morano posted at CFACT’s Climate Depot.  (His coverage made the Drudge Report):

Dear Mom and Dad:

CFACT’s readers know that these are propaganda talking points that do not stand up when studied under the unforgiving lens of real-world scientific observation.

Increasingly adults are not falling for the climate campaign’s false arguments.  Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film couldn’t rank higher than number 61 in the ratings as Anthony Watts pointed out at Watts Up With That.

That’s why they target children.

Hey Weather Channel, 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual!

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director
See more at: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=5a6a4e31f9&e=72a9829d77

Climate Caliphate on the march

Move over ISIS, there’s a new Caliphate in town. It’s called the Climate Caliphate and it’s about ready to bust a move all over the global stage. Exhibit A: Climate Conference, Paris.

“Look, I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business,” Obama said in his latest press conference, with the president of France, on the upcoming Paris summit.

I guess what that really says is that the climate is a far bigger threat than the Christians and infidels could ever be. Take that ISIS.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told the Coast Guard earlier this year.

John Kerry is definitely on the advisory board for the Climate Caliphate.

“When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them,” Kerry noted in February 2014.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/23/obama-climate-change-summit-paris-message-terrorists/

In honor of that here is a catchy tune. (Circa 1982)

ISIS, you got some heavy competition.

I’m offended by Muslims

Yes, you read that right. It’s not politically correct, you say? No, but it is correct to say. (Sorry Hillary, Obama, et al)

News for Muslims: I’m offended we have to sacrifice and fight this battle of Islamic terrorism. What are you doing? What have you done about it? Do you plan on doing anything about it? But our men, women, civilians, and soldiers are killed and maimed by this ideology, which happens to align itself with Islam and Muslims’ faith.

War with Islamists is a 100 year war, but also a permanent one. No one wants to think this is a permanent state of the world. It’s a way of life. Yet our leaders are crying and whining about global warming being a permanent condition of this world. They want us to change our entire lifestyle to reflect that reality their scientists’ claim. No, they demand we do.

I’m offended by Muslims. They all offend me, since they haven’t been able to stop ISIS or any of the other 100 plus terrorist groups. Have Muslims at large ever prevented or intercepted a terrorist plot? Even if they did it would only be one plot, one act. Can they show me a mosque or network that they shut down? No. Do they want us to police it?

But when France was attacked, a Muslim group ran out to say they condemned this act on the strongest possible terms. What’s that mean and what is that worth? Are they just going to come out every time and condemn the act? Are they also condemning ISIS for their existence? Sorry, I’m having a hard time qualifying their condemnation.

Yet they, Muslims and Islamists, tell us that the real problem is people like me that suggest the whole religion might be to blame. That’s the problem they are concerned about and that’s the problem they want all of America (everyone) to actively work on. They want our government stepping in to prevent that injustice. Their biggest worry is that their religion is being slandered somehow by the victims and citizens of the world.

Some people say they are afraid to speak out or come forward to criticize ISIS or Islamist radicals. Yet they are not afraid to come out to criticize us for “hating” on Islam. Isn’t Islamic terrorism giving Muslims a bad name? Wouldn’t you think they would be concerned about that enough to take a stand and do something to stop it? We’ve been waiting over 12 years now. It hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it is going to happen. It has declared war on us and civilization. It is left to the world to deal with and combat it. That is insulting and offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

Blimp goes AWOL

So its run came to an end after causing real damage.

There were no injuries reported. NORAD said a military recovery team was on the way to the area. Moreland Township is about 20 miles east of Williamsport, and about 120 miles northwest of the proving ground. At one point the blimp climbed to 16,000 feet, NORAD said.

The blimp had a tether of approximately 6,700 feet — more than a mile — attached when it broke free, Aberdeen Proving Ground said.

The dragging cable knocked out power to around 30,000 people in Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf’s office said in a statement. By Wednesday night power was restored to most customers, with 311 without electricity as of 11 p.m., power company PPL Electric said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fighter-jets-track-military-blimp-drifting-over-pennsylvania-n453106

But then you gotta love the claim number to call if you had damage from the blimp, which caused mass power outages. Yep, just another day in government work!

Global Warming groupies meet Ted Cruz

A simple question of how is it wrong becomes such a tough unanswered one except that “we concur with 97 % of scientists [who]concur that there is global warming.” That’s what we got from the Sierra Club president. They have no answers for what they call “the pause”.  Sounds more like an episode from Rod Sterling.

Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling

Justin Koski October 8, 2015

See Western Journalism video

Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, and his assertions that the Earth is warming, despite satellite data showing otherwise.

Video Transcript:

Cruz: Is it correct, that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?

Mair: No

Cruz: How is it incorrect?

Mair couldn’t answer the question. He instead needed a sidebar with a colleague to formulate a cop-out answer.

I do find it highly interesting that the president of the Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming, uhm, apparently is relying on staff.

Cruz then pressed Mair on the phenomenon known as “the pause.”

Cruz: Global warming alarmists call that “the pause” because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming and yet the actual satellites taking the measurement don’t show any significant warming.

Mair: But senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming.

Cruz: Your response is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence – the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was, “Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”

Mair then uttered what was interpreted as the Club’s official position.

Our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.

For the remainder of the questioning, Mair blindly repeated his talking point, refusing to retract the position when confronted with the damning evidence.

Mair: I’m saying I concur with 97 percent. We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.

Cruz: But, but, but sir, would you, would you answer the question?

Mair: We are concurring with the 97 percent of the scientists. We concur with 97 percent.

Cruz: So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?

Mair: We concur with the preponderance of the evidence. But I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.

Cruz: That undermines the credibility of any organization if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.

They sound like they concur with the 97 percent of scientists they pay to support their own position. Are we supposed to just trust them?

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-exposes-the-deception-global-warmists-have-been-peddling/

Isn’t that like pleading the 5th amendment to every question asked? So: ‘we agree with those that agree with those that agree and pay us.’ What’s the problem with that?

PPhood runs amok in body parts agenda

During the release of the video showing Planned Parenthood discussing selling body parts from babies, the left claimed to be offended. Not by what was going on but what was reported and the way it was reported/exposed. Then they played their old “context” card with the “they edited it” excuse. How much editing did it need? Well, it was a 2 hour and 42 minute meeting, so there has to be some editing. Though they did release the whole length thing if you care to watch it. And it was just as damning if not worse. But who cares about that when they can just claim, “but it was edited”. Whoopee. So what?

It helps to remember what things Leftists despise and have no patience for. They attack people buying or wearing fur coats made from animal fur. Oh, they turned that into a damnable sin. However, now when it comes to body parts of fetuses they put all their compassion behind ‘but its for research.’ Even the media is spinning the outrage to being its for research. The video made no attempt to avoid the research angle. That was not denied or hidden. In fact, “research” is what makes it appalling. But research does not mitigate PP’s agenda. MSM seems to think it does. And they don’t like fat cat salaries of figurehead CEO’s in wasteful industries.

But now the left blows up in righteous outrage over the exposure of the story but not the process or policies of abortion taking place in Planned Parenthood. So the PP 400k president, Cecile Richards came out to apologize…but only for the way the staff person spoke about the process. She went on to praise and thank tissue donors. Babies would probably be tickled that they are being labeled a “donation” and shipped off to medical research.

“Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.” — Cecile Richards in her apology (soon to become a Democrat fundraiser #StandWithPP; Cemetery of Choice).

Maybe the person did not show enough compassion in speaking about it? No, that is not really possible because abortion requires a lack of compassion for babies in the first place across the industry. Desensitization. Adding more compassion for babies would incriminate themselves and procedures. So it was not for lack of empathy which PP took issue with the staffer. By the way, it was not just a staffer, but it was the head of the national operation. And not a staffer but a doctor. So the CEO was wrong on both counts.

One of the lateral issues discussed at length was the waste issue, tagging and protocol. They talked about incineration and cost. If you mention biological tissue disposal of anything else, you’d get ethical red flags and possible outrage over it. Here we’re dealing with literal human tissue as a waste byproduct of the industry. Try to find a parallel to compare it to.

Since a major point is how callously she talked about graphic details of life and extraction procedures, with similar ease she navigated the national map of which areas are more promising for tissue mining. One she was very confident about was the St. Louis area. Go figure. While California already seems ahead in the tissue game.

This all fits Planned Parenthood’s propaganda campaign. It provides another area they can probe the patient about, donating tissue. So if they can offer them a feel-good purpose to say “the tissue is donated to help people,” it becomes an abortion selling point to assuage those ethical dilemmas and worries of “patients”. They’ve merely spun it into another positive benefit of abortion. I assume the tissue parts most in demand would be later developed, creating an incentive for later abortions. We know that. They are always looking for more selling points.

RightRing | Bullright

Love it when a plan comes together, not

The Global Warming fanatics are still pushing their snake oil. But who is buying it? That could be a problem, or so you would think. This article encapsulates a series of comments at one recent attempt to refute the truth.

Commenters excoriate a Science paper that denies global warming ‘pause’

By S. Fred Singer | July 1, 2015 | American Thinker

Perhaps the most inconvenient truth for global warming theorists has been the absence of any statistically significant warming trend in the past 18 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse-gas carbon-dioxide. Many are simply ignoring this unanticipated result – for example, the encyclical letter issued by Pope Francis on June 18. Conventional climate science, as employed in IPCC models, has been unable to explain these observations.

Coming to the rescue, Dr Tom Karl, head of NOAA’s National Climate Data center (NCDC) asserts that the temperature plateau (aka ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’) is simply an artifact of the data. After he and colleagues adjust some recent SST (sea-surface temp) readings, they claim an uninterrupted warming trend in the 21st century. […/]

I loved this one comment in particular.

Scott Martell

“In all this they are not seeking for theories and causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observations and trying to accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own.” – Aristotle, On the Heavens II.13.293a

[See list of dissent comments]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/commenters_excoriate_a_emscienceem_paper_that_denies_global_warming_pause.html

Lots of questions raised by their claims but don’t expect any explanations from the G/W – Climate Caliphate.  These days it is all about “settled science” and “settled law” responses to any problems, questions, or skepticism. Both of which are pretty unsettling.

Speak loudly and carry a big threat

That should be the new motto for the Marxist, militant left.

Michele takes to the campuses to exact her vengeance on America — structural racism in particular, since that is the left’s new code word no matter who is in office.

And in the face of all of that clamor, you might have an overwhelming instinct to just run the other way as fast as you can. You might be tempted to just recreate what you had here at Oberlin -– to find a community of like-minded folks and work with them on causes you care about, and just tune out all of the noise. And that’s completely understandable. In fact, I sometimes have that instinct myself — run! (Laughter.)

But today, graduates, I want to urge you to do just the opposite. Today, I want to suggest that if you truly wish to carry on the Oberlin legacy of service and social justice, then you need to run to, and not away from, the noise. (Applause.) Today, I want to urge you to actively seek out the most contentious, polarized, gridlocked places you can find. Because so often, throughout our history, those have been the places where progress really happens –- the places where minds are changed, lives transformed, where our great American story unfolds.

Then came the lecture on social justice (their definition) and the get out to vote message. Is that all they care about: politics, elections, and political power? Some “struggle” that is.

So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable. Follow what’s happening in your city hall, your statehouse, Washington, D.C. Better yet, run for office yourself. Get in there. Shake things up. Don’t be afraid. (Applause.) And get out and vote in every election -– not just the big national ones that get all the attention, but every single election. Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.”

Raw raw sis boom bah!
Hold them accountable? Unless you elect Hillary Clinton, then ignore accountability just like now. And while she’s running, give her a big wet-kiss pass.

If Michele was pounding the bigotry of racism, social justice, and revolution; then Obama is pounding the Global Warming propaganda just as arrogantly hard to Coast Guard grads.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term.”

So let me combine Obama’s cliff notes for the military. Do not talk about or mention Christianity or Jesus. That gets you in big trouble. Do put faith in the religion of global warming. Swear on the altar of climate change, talk about it all the time. Mission #1.

 

Well, Obama had already done his own rage routine earlier.

Luther, Obama’s anger translator:

HOLD ON TO YOUR LILY-WHITE BUTTS !!!

Oh don’t worry, Barry, we will… we are! (he couldn’t even say it himself)

Deniers’ delight: a rare inside GW/CC look

From inside the beltway and inside the global warming, climate change movement is a glimpse of the organizers. See Real Science piece here. But here are a couple videos.

Aptly named “Merchants of Smear,” first video here conveys the message:
It really comes down again to the hearts….it comes down to who we think we are.

In part 2 they discuss the movement and target, smear their opposition.

See: “There is a very well funded disinformation campaign”

What a picture of their activism in action. Sometimes these leftists are their worst advertisers. Note the extreme projection and hypocrisy going on there.

“Eventually we’re going to turn the corner,” they say. Turn what corner, total control? Note all the religious overtones. There’s a prime inside look. Being Michael Mann is elevated to sort of a god, I’m surprised he is making any personal appearances.

Big H/T to Steve Goddard for the efforts.

Blown away in global warming

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Michael Bastasch – 03/31/2015 | Daily Caller

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

Continue: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

What does it mean? It seems to come down to they didn’t really know what they thought they knew, when they thought they knew it. Could all their ballyhooed global warming ” scientists” have been wrong all along? Science is settled, debate is over? They call us the deniers. But then that only means that the political apparatus will kick into higher gear to compensate for the negative news.

Universal collapse

Okay, Global Warming and Climate Change, move over there is a new kid in town. The eminent end of the universe is coming, they say.

Collapse of the universe coming sooner than expected according to new research

Mar 26th 2015 | AOL

You’ve heard of the Big Bang, but what about the “Colossal Crash?” Get ready, because it might be coming sooner than you think … relatively speaking.

In a paper published in Physical Review Letters a group of physicists have theorized a mechanism for “cosmological collapse” which predicts the universe will at some point stop expanding and then collapse back onto itself, destroying us and pretty much all matter.

Read more

Paper http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.101302

So here is my parallel. If and when Al Gore ceases to hyperventilate about Climate Change or Global Warming, it will cause a black hole and a super vacuum which will suck us all back to the original big bang and we will be burnt in the exhaust. Baring that gigantic IF, this is the next thing that could take Al Gore and his scientists out of the spotlight.

And the worst part, for Gore fanatics, is it won’t be blamed on humans or fossil fuels. So science — the final frontier — may be done in by… science. Sort of like the Big Unbang.

Science fiction meets current medical debate

This is a bizarre, ethically challenging subject from a Natural News article. Apparently the development is really under way.

No longer science fiction: Aborted human fetuses harvested to grow kidney organs in rats for transplantation into human patients

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048411_organ_harvesting_aborted_babies_biotech_medicine.html

I don’t know how to even talk about this, kidneys from abortion fetal matter, grown in rats. My head is spinning and then the thought of harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses. It’s called a breakthrough? Is it more like science fiction than wonders of science?

NY gets punked

New York, you’ve been punked.

Sponsored by the folks who are going to correct and fix our climate.

Climate of denial. Superstorm of massive disinformation.

News Alert:
Death of the live shot in NY for Tuesday, canceled due to lack of interest.

Not to worry, the science is still “settled”. The debate is still over.

A giant leap for medicine ?

Research has possibly discovered the next antibiotic line. It claims a new antibiotic could hit the marker in around five years to treat various stubborn infections.

First new antibiotic in 30 years discovered in major breakthrough

The discovery of Teixobactin could pave the way for a new generation of antibiotics because of the way it was discovered.

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor | The Telegraph — Jan 07, 2015

The first new antibiotic to be discovered in nearly 30 years has been hailed as a ‘paradigm shift’ in the fight against the growing resistance to drugs.

Teixobactin has been found to treat many common bacterial infections such as tuberculosis, septicaemia and C. diff, and could be available within five years.

But more importantly it could pave the way for a new generation of antibiotics because of the way it was discovered.

Continue reading: The Telegraph

 
Anyone who has had the pleasure of taking Vancomycin(derived in ’53 from soil in Borneo jungle) knows the scary part of antibiotics. What if it doesn’t work? Well, then you have a problem. So this gives a lot of new hope for new antibiotics.

Access denied: cancer care on chopping block

Nation’s elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare

By Associated Press – March 19, 2014 | NY Post

WASHINGTON — Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some of the nation’s best cancer hospitals are off-limits.

An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington state’s insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it’s in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.

Doctors and administrators say they’re concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.

“This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans,”  said Dan Mendelson, CEO market research firm Avalere Health.

More: http://nypost.com/2014/03/19/nations-elite-cancer-hospitals-off-limits-under-obamacare/

It is getting very interesting, as those three thousand pages start to speak.

DNC plumbing the depths with PP

Democrats, DNC or DCCC have some election ads calling Republicans and conservatives extremists and radicals for being anti-Planned Parenthood.

Imagine, in 2014 it is considered “radical” and extremist for a candidate to oppose an institutional baby-killing agenda. So being pro-life is now radical.

Here is just one of many ads from Dems and the DNC with a common message .


Script:

Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.” — [speech to Sons of Liberty in 2010 ]
Narrator:
Tea Party millionaire Nan Hayworth.  She calls herself a radical.
But what does that mean for you?
Hayworth opposed a woman’s right to choose.
And voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
And on Social Security, Hayworth wants to risk seniors’ benefits on Wall Street.
So now, when Nan Hayworth says:
Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.”
Narrator
We know exactly what she means.
The DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

We know exactly what Dems mean. It leaves little doubts. A war on babies has been transformed into some Republican “war on women”.

In another ad, a Democat is praised as an “advocate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet the same candidate claims to stand against special interests — “reducing the influence of special interests”.

Being considered radical or extreme for pro-life positions is how far, or low, we’ve come.
War on humanity anyone? What if the 50 million plus cast their votes?
What’s your definition of radical?

RightRing | Bullright

So no cause for alarm?

Six Reasons to Panic

Oct 27, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 07 • By JONATHAN V. LAST | Weekly Standard

As a rule, one should not panic at whatever crisis has momentarily fixed the attention of cable news producers. But the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which has migrated to both Europe and America, may be the exception that proves the rule. There are at least six reasons that a controlled, informed panic might be in order.

1) Start with what we know, and don’t know, about the virus. Officials from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other government agencies claim that contracting Ebola is relatively difficult because the virus is only transmittable by direct contact with bodily fluids from an infected person who has become symptomatic. Which means that, in theory, you can’t get Ebola by riding in the elevator with someone who is carrying the virus, because Ebola is not airborne.

This sounds reassuring. Except that it might not be true. There are four strains of the Ebola virus that have caused outbreaks in human populations. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the current outbreak (known as Guinean EBOV, because it originated in Meliandou, Guinea, in late November 2013) is a separate clade “in a sister relationship with other known EBOV strains.” Meaning that this Ebola is related to, but genetically distinct from, previous known strains, and thus may have distinct mechanisms of transmission.

Not everyone is convinced that this Ebola isn’t airborne. Last month, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy published an article arguing that the current Ebola has “unclear modes of transmission” and that “there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.”

And even if this Ebola isn’t airborne right now, it might become so in the future. Viruses mutate and evolve in the wild, and the population of infected Ebola carriers is now bigger than it has been at any point in history—meaning that the pool for potential mutations is larger than it has ever been. As Dr. Philip K. Russell, a virologist who oversaw Ebola research while heading the U.S. Army’s Medical Research and Development Command, explained to the Los Angeles Times last week,

I see the reasons to dampen down public fears. But scientifically, we’re in the middle of the first experiment of multiple, serial passages of Ebola virus in man. .  .  . God knows what this virus is going to look like. I don’t.

Great article well worth the time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/six-reasons-panic_816387.html?page=1

As to motive for Obama’s stubborn refusal to ban travel, it goes to motive. According to this article, I am not alone. Obama’s immigration policies are the big reason. It might disturb his open border policy and interfere with his amnesty plans. Sort of looks bad if you ban travel while you are declaring there is no threat on our southern border. It proves there is a security issue. I bet he curses the Ebola timing. How dare it interfere with his plans.

The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

RightRing | Bullright