Did Obamacare come with seatbelts?

Some people may hope so, as the ride gets really bumpy.

NYT does not offer already-disgruntled Obamacare patrons victims a life preserver.

“As you can see on our map of those counties, an Anthem departure could leave coverage gaps in substantial parts of Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and Colorado, as well as smaller holes in other states. In places where no insurance company offers plans, there will be no way for Obamacare customers to use subsidies to buy health plans.

Without an option for affordable coverage, they would become exempt from the health law’s mandate to obtain coverage. A result could be large increases in the number of Americans without health insurance.”

So far, no carrier has come forward publicly to say it will serve the counties in Tennessee that Humana is leaving.

Obamacare is already in critical condition. Yet all we hear from MSM in response to alternatives or repeal plans is “but people will lose their healthcare.” Really? It’s hard to mandate something that is not affordable or available.

Let’s just call her ‘Spreadsheet Suzie’

Report: Susan Rice Ordered ‘Spreadsheets’ of Trump Campaign Calls

by Joel B. Pollak4 Apr 2017 | Breitbart

President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign aides during the last election, and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.

The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by blogger Mike Cernovich and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides’ names to be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. The alleged “unmasking” may have been legal, but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the aim of leaking them to the press.

At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News compiled the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking — all based on mainstream media reports — the mainstream media dismissed the story as a “conspiracy theory.”

Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of the Obama administration’s alleged surveillance continue to emerge.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/report-susan-rice-ordered-spreadsheets-trump-campaign-calls/

Oh no, nothing to see here, media can go back to sleep. Spreadsheet Suzie’s got this!

More on another Breitbart article on Rice’s interview with Andrea Mitchel (lovefest)

“I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would.”

Rice: “I can’t get into any specific reports … what I can say is there is an established process.”

Well, so there’s an “established process” for surveillance, I take it?
And Spreadsheet Suzie was right on it.

Susan Rice center of Unmasking-gate

Washington Free Beacon

Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, reportedly requested on several occasions the identities of “masked” U.S. persons in intelligence reports linked to President Trump’s transition and campaign. The revelation contradicts Rice’s past comments on March 22, when she claimed she knew “nothing” about the intelligence reports.

White House lawyers discovered Rice’s dozens of requests last month, during a National Security Council review of the “government’s policy on ‘unmasking’ the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally,” Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported Monday, citing U.S. officials.

But Rice, who Newsweek once called Obama’s “right-hand woman,” denied during a PBS interview last month having any knowledge of the intelligence community’s alleged incidental surveillance of Trump’s transition team.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/flashback-susan-rice-said-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Why does that make perfect sense?

The person who in 2012 told every major news network that a video caused the Benghazi attack. Obama’s Legacy of Lies’ right-hand deceiver.

Mo-Bro still the undeclared terrorist org

13 reasons to declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization

Trump reportedly backing off of executive order
Updated: 03/30/2017

Leo Hohmann — WND

President Trump has decided not to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, at least for now, according to published reports citing pressure from the U.S. State Department and the King of Jordan.

Anonymous sources told the Washington Times that the administration “backed down from a plan to designate the Brotherhood” after an internal State Department memo advised against it.

The State Department’s argument – put forth in a memo to the White House – comes down to a belief that there is actually more than one Brotherhood and that one side is not as bad as the other because it works through democratic processes in the Middle East, the Washington Times reports.

Yet, it’s always been known that the Brotherhood operates on multiple levels.

According to scholar Martin Kramer, the Muslim Brotherhood from its early days had “a double identity.” Kramer, as quoted by Discover the Networks, writes:

“On one level, they operated openly, as a membership organization of social and political awakening. [Founder Hassan] al-Banna preached moral revival, and the Muslim Brethren engaged in good works. On another level, however, the Muslim Brethren created a ‘secret apparatus’ that acquired weapons and trained adepts in their use. Some of its guns were deployed against the Zionists in Palestine in 1948, but the Muslim Brethren also resorted to violence in Egypt. They began to enforce their own moral teachings by intimidation, and they initiated attacks against Egypt’s Jews.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., one of the earliest advocates of banning the Brotherhood in the U.S., describes it as “the mother lode of global terrorism.” She told WND President Trump is unlikely to be successful in defeating Islamic terror without confronting the head of the snake.

“It is the umbrella organization from which all terrorism flows because the Brotherhood’s goal is global Islamic rule,” Bachmann told WND. “It’s no coincidence that every terrorist act stems from the same Muslim Brotherhood motivation: Global governance under Islamic Shariah law.”

Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/13-reasons-to-declare-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-organization/#CPpfdsqV6KPM1Vu7.99

Again with the anonymous sources but, that aside, it is a reminder of the real problem. Sound familiar? Of course it does. The Muslims play the notion to the hilt that on one side there are terrorist Islamists while on the other there are those peacenik Muslims. Which ones are the activists? That would be the terrorist, caliphate ones — including ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban et al.  It’s blatantly obvious the peaceniks are not the activists, else they would be at odds with Islamist terrorists. But that disagreement and conflict is strangely missing, which is part of the problem.

It would be hard to imagine the “Shining city on a hill” — as Reagan coined the US — being the biggest promoter of abortion on the planet, if it is to remain true to that notion. But no, it doesn’t make sense. Nor does it make sense not to label a terrorist organization a terrorist organization, one with ties deep into this “shining city on a hill”.

Westinghouse down but not out

Forbes
James Conca , | Contributor

Westinghouse Bankruptcy Shakes The Nuclear World

On Wednesday, Westinghouse Electric Company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in New York to restructure itself as a result of costly problems at the AP1000 power plants it’s building in Georgia and South Carolina.

Westinghouse has obtained $800 million in debtor-in-possession financing from a third-party lender to help fund and protect its core businesses during this reorganization.

Its Japanese parent company, Toshiba, declared that its nuclear power business has already lost $6 billion, which could go up to $10 billion, and is seeking ways to limit its liability. Toshiba shares have lost over $7 billion in market value this fiscal year.

Westinghouse selected the Shaw Group, led by James Bernhard Jr., to spearhead construction. Bernhard, a wheeler and dealer, ../

In the meantime, Westinghouse turned to a real nuclear construction contractor, Fluor Corporation, to get the nuclear plants back on track, but it is too early to tell how successful they will be. Even with the cost overruns and delays, these reactors should get completed and they should still have lower life-cycle costs than renewables or new coal.

More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/31/westinghouse-bankruptcy-shakes-the-nuclear-world/#10d7370f2688

It’s unclear to this simple laymen why they originally would have gone with the nuke-upstart Shaw Group? A big company like Westinghouse and Toshiba…like shouldn’t they have seen this coming? On the other hand Fluor — a company even I worked under a short time — is an old standard, and dependable.

Why did it take them so long, and make it so costly, to turn to them? Just seems they were out to cut corners(costs) from the beginning and got burned. What else explains it? Plus some inner-industry ego rivalry. Now they’ll pay for their errors.

But then the way media were starting to report the story as if Westinghouse was finished. And likely it will be spun into an anti-nuclear power story, which it is not if you read this report. In fact, nuclear energy should be enjoying a resurgence. Thanks Westinghouse-Toshiba [sarcasm], you didn’t do the sector any favors.

UBI: universal basic income

From Futurism

  • Bill Gates has said he doesn’t think a UBI system would work right now as countries do not have enough money and should first focus on helping specific groups of people.
  • With automation poised to displace millions of workers in the coming years, many countries do think UBI systems are worth testing out.

In theory, a universal basic income (UBI) would be great. Under such a system, all citizens of a country are entitled to an unconditional amount of money on top of income they already generate through other means. It could spur productivity, improve health, alleviate poverty, reduce crime, raise education, and improve quality of life. It’s also especially relevant, given the reality of automation taking over more and more jobs.

More: https://futurism.com/4-bill-gates-thinks-countries-arent-ready-for-basic-income-yet/

Many people claim 2017 is the year UBI sweeps across nations. But when even Bill Gates cautions that it may bot be ready for prime time — or we for it — well, that is not an encouraging sign for them.

I guess the left are busy pushing the 15-dollar minimum wage now anyway.

And why not just give everyone a portfolio of stocks too — a basket of their choosing within a fixed dollar amount? I mean while they’re at it.

The Mexican Fox is at it again

Under the radar and from south of the border comes this gem of a statement.

Seems Trump is not the only one tweeting

We haven’t forgotten that gift that keeps on taking, NAFTA, That did wonders for the USA, workers…and businesses, didn’t it?

The NAFTA disaster.

Chuck Schumer unhinged….and unapologetic

Schumer makes news for verbally attacking a woman, who voted for Trump. Rush had the details.

Sen. Chuck Schumer creates a scene at a restaurant berating a woman who voted for Trump. But not just any woman and not jut any restaurant. He kept telling her Trump is a liar, how could you vote for him?

Remember when you were a kid your parents told you “now don’t make a scene”? Well, Chuck missed that lesson. Politics, you know.

Like Rush said, these people are not right. There is something very wrong.

Nice going, Schmucko!
Somewhere there is a mirror laughing its ass off, with Schumer’s face stained into it.

I guess Schumer has Uncivil Rights.

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

Did the Government Spy on Trump? Of Course. It Spies on All of Us! by Ron Paul

STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

It’s disturbing if the government spied on Trump. It’s far more disturbing that the government spies on the rest of us. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.com:

There was high drama last week when Rep. Devin Nunes announced at the White House that he had seen evidence that the communications of the Donald Trump campaign people, and perhaps even Trump himself, had been “incidentally collected” by the US government.

If true, this means that someone authorized the monitoring of Trump campaign communications using Section 702 of the FISA Act. Could it have been then-President Obama? We don’t know. Could it have been other political enemies looking for something to harm the Trump campaign or presidency? It is possible.

There is much we do not yet know about what happened and there is probably quite a bit we will never know. But we do know several very important things about the government…

View original post 203 more words

MSM meets cable, or the Hannitization of America … or not

CAUTION: this content requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ted Koppel gets Sean Hannity on and tells him, and Fox, he is bad for America.

But wait, ol’ Teddy has kind of a habit of doing that
He told O’Reilly he pretty much ruined the country. (very optimistic)

So Teddy does have that going for him. But then, to be fair to Koppel, he delivered similar commentary about Rush Limbaugh and others. Many others.

What is interesting, though, is what he blames. He accuses Rush for starting it, but that his rise(creation) was only because of the absence of the Fairness Doctrine when that ended. Ah, so ol’ Ted has confidence in the Fairness Doctrine being the cop on the beat.

Well, we know how that worked don’t we?

It was used just as much for censorship as for fairness. And MSM personas like him would be protected as knights of the fairness castle. Everything flowing through them. So Koppel would like to put free speech, and press, back in the bottle if he could… but he can’t.

Thus, he now goes on the circuit railing against these opinionators and pundits as the villains of the news media. No, Ted, you did a fine enough job in ruining journalism, media, America, and confidence in media all by yourself.

Sorry Teddy, the 1st Amendment did not include the Fairness Doctrine, and I’ve also checked all amendments since. Nada. But nice try — even if it sounds so official.

If you wanted Pravda, you could always move to Russia where government will gladly be the arbiter of what news media can say. Got that, Ted?

(Instructions… now grasp handle and press downward to flush.)

Note: I will say he has real points on his “Lights Out” book on a cyber attack and grid concerns. Yet his lights already seem to be out on news channels and media.

(**correction: Koppel interviewed Hannity at length, and chopped it to about 2 minutes)

A Potpourri of Liberal Hypocrisy

Three things you can always be assured of: death, taxes and liberal hypocrisy. No region on earth is more saturated with it than California — proudly known as the incubator and purveyor of liberal thought.

Since that is an established fact, it would be an overload to list examples. Liberals, i.e. Democrats in lockstep, are demanding San Fran and the sate divest and boycott any construction companies who cooperate on building the wall.(seems even bidding)

It’s okay to discriminate against them — it’s encouraged. But if we threaten to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities refusing to follow the law, they threaten to sue.

Move along to Maryland, wonderful little Rockville. Here they have a crime where two illegals (undocumented) raped a 14 year old girl in a bathroom in school. One 18 and the other a minor. Outrage erupts from sane people. But Montgomery county is a sanctuary area, so good luck nailing them. How much more should a school be a sanctuary for citizens of a community? But never mind.

In fact, liberals want to declare all Maryland a sanctuary for illegals. They are threatening that any town or county doing otherwise would have its state funding cut.

You see how backwards this all is? It’s completely upside down or reversed. They’ve made official, unlawful resistance to law the new normal. (not the exception) Oops, we’re sorry, there are no exemptions You can’t opt out of it — that would be unlawful.

Another case in the South is in Texas. We all know they take a stand, right? Well, they have Sanctuary Sally, an elected sheriff officially denying her oath and refusing to cooperate with federal law. Even worse, she ran on a platform of defying the law.

Add her to the coalition of Resistance. At least Governor Abbot is trying to resist ol’ Sanctuary Sally. Not so much in Maryland or California. They get rewarded there.

I have a new medical term for this craziness: Sanctuary Psychosis.

Their biggest fear or problem is how to obstruct or avoid the federal law.

Meanwhile, Trump rolled out his second national security executive order that was immediately met with an act of defiance from Hawaii to halt it. Yes, national security is the very last thing government should be concerned with. Preserving lawlessness is a priority.

Let’s go even deeper — not into the abstract but into the liberal hypocrisy epidemic.

Ryan and Trump try to pass the repeal and replace Obamacare plan. Whamo, it meets with stiff resistance. Okay, you might expect as much. But the same problems Obamacare had, has are the same ones they accuse are in this plan. Liberals sent their mutiny of militia to townhalls to protest, claiming they were just like Tea Parties.

As the bill got yanked, when it did not have the votes, liberals ran to the microphones. Nancy Pelosi declared it a huge victory for the people — who have a failed system that is doomed to implosion. That’s a victory. Your skyrocketing premiums and deductibles you can never meet are… “a victory.” Fight to save that.

We’ve now seen hypocrisy on a scale never even imagined before.

N. Korea, Syria and Russia became 5-alarm problems the day Trump took office. Obama hadn’t done a thing but hey, now that they are Trumps’ probs, they are super urgent.

Obama never lifted a finger in office to fix his Obamacare , but now Dems scream it needs to be fixed. Now they say premiums and deductibles are too high, and claim it is Trump’s problem to fix — that he’s responsible for it. Really?(or so they assert)

So we’ve been there, done that and have all the scars to prove it.
Now they tell us how ugly those scars are.

RightRing | Bullright

Jefferson’s wisdom

“Whenever the words of a law will bear two meanings, one of which will give effect to the law, and the other will defeat it, the former must be supposed to have been intended by the Legislature, because they could not intend that meaning, which would defeat their intention, in passing that law; and in a statute, as in a will, the intention of the party is to be sought after.”

1–Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:110

“When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.”

2–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

3–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

Source: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1020.htm

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?

 

Seeing is not believing, St Patrick’s snipe

I’m seeing the Dems and media in a frenzy daily to find something, anything, to blame on Trump. This is proof that seeing does not always equate with believing.

The media calls itself adversarial press. That would be an understatement, and probably require redefinition as hostile.

But even St Patrick’s Day cannot pass without a chance for MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to take a swipe at Trump.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Irish-Americans Working for Trump ‘Disgrace Their Heritage’

BY: Alex Griswold — March 17, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Irish-Americans on St. Patrick’s Day that they were betraying their heritage if they worked for President Donald Trump.

O’Donnell, who is an Irish-American, tweeted out on Friday that, “The Irish-Americans working for Trump disgrace their heritage.”

O’Donnell’s tweet links to an op-ed from the New York Times shaming the Trump administration’s Irish-Americans employees for being insufficiently empathic towards to the plight of immigrants.

“We Irish are not Know Nothings. We know something important: what it’s like to be feared, to be discriminated against, to be stereotyped,” wrote columnist Fintan O’Toole.

Among the notable Irish-Americans working for Trump are Vice President Mike Pence, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, and chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Original: http://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-irish-americans-working-for-trump-disgrace-their-heritage/

Well, Lawrence, mission accomplished. One day Rachael Maddow makes a non-bombshell tax revelation, and then along comes O’Donnell to wrap in Irish immigration.

No more shamrocks for you, Lawrence. And lay off the caffeine Maddow, it won’t pump up your ratings.

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.)

Defending the Indefensible

I’m almost amused by the political dialogue — to use the term loosely — of the left these days but if one thing sums it up, it would be defending the indefensible.

They apply those talents to Obamacare. What is there to defend? It is a total mess even for doctors and healthcare professionals, and prices are going through the roof. But if anyone can defend that it would be Democrats or the liberal left. Calling that a success is sort of like calling the burnig of Rome a strategic victory.

It isn’t the only place they’ve applied their expertise.They defend Obama’s sham legacy, his leading from behind foreign policy. He doubled the national debt….. “winning!”

Finally, Trump has taken the opportunity to say he was left a big mess all over. That was a strange way of securing Obama’s legacy. Now that Trump elegantly points that out, shrieks come from thhe heckler section. Dare he say that? Mess is an understatement.

Remember Obama’s doctrine was “don’t do stupid shit!” Apparently they didn’t follow their own doctrine. Unless fertilized evil was their idea of smart?

The Democrat party is in a scorched-earth campaign to deny the effects of the last 8 years, and to defend the entire scandalous, evil hole called Obama’s legacy. But it was a pretty big giveaway how bad it is when their biggest claim was Obama had a scandal-free administration for eight years. And Valerie Jarrett echoed that across liberaldom.

Leading from behind and “don’t do stupid shit” being pillars of that tenure. If it looks like and quacks like a duck, guess what? It ain’t a pig. Besides, there isn’t enough lipstick to cover this mess. But who’s trying? How quick their perspective changed from a yellow brick road under a rainbow; to a black plague in every corner with red-alert problems everywhere, just as he leaves. They can complain about leadership now.

On one hand they’ll be defending, on the other they’ll be condemning everything, everywhere. Their hope and change turned to Mope and Complain.

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright