The "Manchurian Candidate" and Obama's Pathetic Responses to Terrorism

The “Manchurian Candidate” and Obama’s Pathetic “Responses” to Islamist Terrorism

 

Following Barack Obama’s groveling “apology and appeasement” tour across the Middle East and North Africa shortly after his inauguration, he began a concerted effort to debase our relations with moderate allies in the region, Eastern Europe, Eurasia and Europe.  It wasn’t that we couldn’t see this coming, since he made it clear even before the election that he would sit with our enemies “without preconditions.” And, if his words were insufficient, he secretly opened back-channels to Iran even as Ahmadinejad was mocking the United States.

His disastrously inept “policies” were criticized by conservative commentators, who saw only the effects, but wholly missed the causes of such disasters as the Russian “reset” and abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic. This gave way to his capitulation to Iran during the nascent “Green Revolution, which saw protesters jailed, beaten and shot in the streets. Not long after, he began dismantling the American presence in Iraq, where the small force left in place served as the only deterrent to previously-warring factions, that we have seen devolve into radical Sunni terrorism and the establishment of “the Caliphate.”

There soon followed the eruptions of Islamist radicalism in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, after the “promise” of the “Arab (false) Spring.

But, these debacles, the resulting rise and empowerment of radical Islam were NOT the result of ineptitude, but perfidy!  Obama took every opportunity to assist or enable Islamists who opposed Western culture and ideologies (much as his father did, and he, himself, advocated in his “Dreams From My Father.”  He embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, inviting them to Washington; he did nothing to stabilize Libya after we enabled Qaddafi’s destruction, he invited Taliban to open negotiations, even after they openly asserted that they would never truly negotiate with “the West.” All the while, his infatuation with Iran’s growing influence and increasing presence in the region helped him keep up the façade of talks, which were little more than appeasements, capitulations and American compromises.

 

When, at last, the Islamists were sufficiently encouraged and abetted enough to begin seizing swaths of sovereign territory from Syria and Iraq in murderous and despicable attacks upon indigenous innocents and  non-combatants whose only offense was to be “non believers,” Obama felt somewhat compelled to feign “outrage.” Even after sort-of committing U.S. forces to assist a feeble resistance, he admitted that he hadn’t been upset enough by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or as he peculiarly insisted, “the Levant” –ISIL) atrocities to formulate a strategy!

 

He and the ever-accommodating John Kerry continued throughout to profess outrage, indignation and revulsion, while doing as little as possible to actually have any negative effect upon their progress.  It was only after the rest of the civilized and sane world witnessed the effects of his indifference upon the hapless and harmless Kazidis that he actually began a half-hearted effort to take land away and protect some of the people in ISIS/ISIL’s way.

 

It was during the latter part of this semi-opposition that ISIS/ISIL began to suggest that indifference was not good enough, and began to take American’s hostage and subject them to ghastly detentions and threts of murder, as if to tell Obama, “Good, but not good enough.”

 

This culminated in a final attempted “Grand Gesture:” the illegal, unannounced and highly suspicious “swap” of FIVE known Islamic terrorists for ONE suspected traitorous/deserting Bowe Bergdahl!

Since his release, Bergdahl has been “investigated,” but the results or even the process of such inquiry  remain secret, leaving many American s wondering just what, if anything, we gained in the transaction.

 

(NOTE: How familiar are you with Richard Condon’s 1959 novel, “The Manchurian Candidate,” in which an American ex-POW soldier is returned to the U. S., only to be revealed as a hidden secret weapon against his own country?)

 

 

Witness the results of the string of such atrocities and Obama’s (and occasionally Kerry’s) pathetic responses.

8/14:     ISIS beheads Jim Foley

Barack Obama: "Today the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL”  “The U.S. continues to "do what is necessary" to protect Americans.”

 "We will be vigilant and we will be relentless," he said.

John Kerry  decried “the unfathomable brutality of ISIL”  “When terrorists … have murdered our citizens, the United States held them accountable, no matter how long it took,”

 

9/14:     ISIL/ISIS beheads Steven Sotloff

Barack Obama: “Americans are repulsed by their barbarism. We will not be intimidated.”

“The United States will continue to lead a regional and international effort against the barbaric … ISIL .”

 

9/14:     ISIS beheads David Haines

Baeack Obama: “ the U.S. “strongly condemns the barbaric murder,” and … “stands shoulder to shoulder tonight with our close friend and ally in grief and resolve.”

Obama said the U.S. will work with Britain and a broad collation of nations to bring to justice those who committed what he called an "outrageous act."

 

10/14:   ISIS beheads Alan Henning

Barack Obama: “the U.S. “strongly condemns the brutal murder” and –[is] “standing together with our UK friends and allies.  “We will work to bring the perpetrators of Alan’s murder — as well as the

murders of Jim Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines — to justice.”

Obama said the U.S. will work with Britain and a broad collation of nations to bring to justice those who committed what he called an "outrageous act."

 

1/15:     ISIS beheads Haruna Yukawa

BaeackObama:  “the U.S. “strongly condemns the brutal murder …  and “we stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Japan.”

Obama said the U.S. will work with Japan and a broad collation of nations to bring to justice those who committed what he called an "outrageous act."

 

1/15:     ISIS (a.k.a. ISIL) beheads Kenji Goto

Barack Obama: “the U.S. “condemns the heinous murder of Japanese citizen and [is] “standing together with a broad coalition of allies and partners…

John Kerry:      “We share the sorrow and continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our ally Japan in confronting terrorism.”

Obama said the U.S. will work with Japan and a broad collation of nations to bring to justice those who committed what he called an "outrageous act."

 

1/15” ISIS burns Muath Al-Kaseasbeh alive

Barack Obama: "it's just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And it, I think, will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated."

 

 

 

 

 

HOW JORDAN DOES IT:

After refusing Jordan’s insistence on providing “proof of life” before it capitulated or appeased with the release of captured ISIS fighters, they murder Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kaseasbeh.

 

'Kill our pilot and we'll execute ALL your prisoners': Jordan 'says it will hang its ISIS captives' if airman hostage is dead. Jordan 'warns it will fast-track executions in retaliation for ISIS bloodshed'. Fears are now growing that Al-Kaseasbeh has already been murdered Jordan says it is still waiting for proof that captured F-16 pilot was alive

 

Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution, also sees a meythod to Obama’s apparent madness.  His take covers all of Obama’s American reduction, not just vis a vis Islamists.

 

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397720/obama-does-have-strategy-victor-davis-hanson

February 3, 2015 4:00 AM

Obama Does Have a Strategy

 Once you see what he is trying to accomplish, it all makes sense. 

By Victor Davis Hanson

Redford's Misused Opportunity

HuffPo gives "select contributors" access to post blog on its site to address issues it values or deems worthy of consideration by the rest of us hoi polloi.


Recently Robert Redford logged-on to voice his opinions on Keystone XL. Actually, they could hardly be called "his" opinions, as the post simply regurgitated some of the many, mostly wrong, bases for the more generalized opposition to which we have been exposed for the last 5 years.


"Here's Why Keystone XL Is the Wrong Choice for Our Nation"




Redford, as with so many of his "brethren," has been given a forum available to very few, but offers little balance and much misrepresentation in exchange for such largesse.


The world will have to rely upon fossil fuels for at least the next 50 years as the primary source of energy as populations grow, countries become more developed, and "renewables" continue to falter.
Even at maximum production and deployment, "renewables" will only make up a tiny fraction of energy needs in the coming Century, by anyone's reasoned estimation.


The Alberta resources will be developed and exploited regardless of what Redford, Obama,  Congress or "environmentalists" do.


There are already thousands of pipelines crossing the Plains, and accidents are few and far between.  The alternatives for transport, rail and truck, are more expensive and more dangerous.


Of course, underlying 99% of the Keystone XL opposition is the belief that Man is causing "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, for which "the science is (far from)settled," and for which few are working toward adaptation instead of avoidance.


The dogmatic rigidity of the CAGW faith reviles even consideration that there are alternative explanations than fossil fuel use for changes in the climate, or that there are other "catastrophic" threats that demand more immediate attention and resources.


What a waste of bandwidth!  

Obama's Foreign Policy Failure

Andrew Racevich, once a lukewarm Obama  supporter, has published his take on why Barack Obama's foreign policy initiatives are seen as such failures.  From the "Cairo initiative" to the re-kindled Iraq was on terror, Columbia University's "George McGovern Fellow," cites numerous instances where Obama's proclamations failed to result in positives or even measurable results:
"when it comes to foreign policy, this very smart man was not quite smart enough to appreciate the magnitude of the problems he inherited, to understand how little he knew, and to recruit a team with sufficient talent to help him bridge the yawning gap between the first two."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9403672/barack-obama-anatomy-of-a-failure/


Commenters have noted that the core of Obama's lack of success, or even initiative, have been pointed out by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, who was subsequently singled-out and prosecuted for campaign funding / IRS / tax-related issues.

You don't have to reach out to others, such as D'Souza, for proof of Obama's "anti-colonial" intentions. All you have to do is read "Dreams FROM My Father."  Obama made it very clear, BEFORE he was elected, what his outlooks, beliefs and motivations were.  Those who failed to take heed now scratch their heads, wondering 'What happened,' when it right in front of them all along.
I learned long ago that the only way for conservatives to truly understand what "progressives" seek is to study their more-private words, rather than their speeches and proclamations; and to scrutinize their actions, past and present; then use them against them.
I saw this coming in 2008, and told you so.

Khadijah Lynch tries to hide "no sympathy" tweets

Earlier this month, Brandeis Afro-American Studies (?) student Kadijah Lynch revealed her hate for the U. S. and her contempt for others who don't share her opinions.


She later revealed her inability to understand the public nature of the social media by claiming that anyone who repeated her opinions or connected her to them would be guilty of "slander."


What an ignorant, privileged, idiot!


Here's a touch of what she publicly tweeted, starting with Nov. 25, 2014:
Khadijah Lynch @punQross3
 “the fact that black people have not burned this country down is beyond me"


After the execution of the NYPD officers, she exulted:
Kadijah Lynch @punQross3
“lmao, all i just really dont have sympathy for the cops who were shot. i hate this racist fucking country,”


Later, she admonished anyone who thought this was worth sharing:
These tweets are [my] “own personal opinion” and [do not want my] tweets "publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."


She has now closed THAT account, and deleted all her "opinions.


This was after she had published her disdain for the school nurturing her beliefs and worthless "studies" (and, I suppose, those who are paying her way):
"a social justice themed institution grounded in zionism. word. thats a fucking fanny dooley,”


She has now regained the confidence to resume tweet posts:
Khadijah (خديجة)Protected Tweets  @punQros3  
     poet. revolutionary. crazy cat lady. black feminist thot/thinker. afro punk.

"@punQros3's Tweets are protected. Only confirmed followers have access to @punQros3's Tweets and complete profile. Click the "Follow" button to send a follow request."

If this is what 3 years of the Brandeis "Afro-American Studies" program produces, who would want to "follow" this idiot, anyway?

NYPD Slowdown vs. Prosecutorial Discretion

While one of the reasons for NYPD frustration may be the Mayor's perceived lack of support, the primary reason for the decline in enforcement is tied to unionization of civil servants.


"Work slow downs" and "teacher flu" absenteeism are the direct result of and (wrongly) accepted tactics of union efforts to persuade public employers to accede to their demands. You get what you pay for.



What I find most interesting from the NYT editorial, though, is the admonishment:
"The police are sworn public servants, and refusing to work violates their oath to serve and protect." 



This seems both hypocritical and galling when the same editorial board has nothing but praise for the


Obama administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws. What of the presidential oath to "faithfully enforce" the laws of the land. I do not recall an exception for immigration, national origin or "prosecutorial discretion" anywhere in the Constitution, or in the oath Obama took at his inaugurations.
 
If "discretion" is a valid excuse for non-enforcement, it would seem more properly exercised in the cases of public urination than those of detention and deportation of criminal illegal aliens



What hypocrites!.

Scalise and bias

 

Much has been made of Rep. Scalise’s alleged appearance before EURO, or whether he even spoke to the organization at all.

The original post, from the son of a Scalise opponent, picked up by WaPO and HuffPo (those bastions of truth and accuracy), has been challenged by his “sponsor” as inaccurate.  It appears now that Scalise spoke to the sponsor, Knight’s, and Scalise’s  neighborhood association at the Metairie hotel 2 hours BEFORE the EURO event!

 

So, a then-state representative knowingly/unintelligently/accidentally spoke about budget issues 2 hours before a “White Supremacist” event 12 years ago?

 

But what if a presidential candidate‘s “spiritual mentor” was an anti-American, anti-White racist (Jeremiah Wright)?

What if one of his political mentors was a convicted terrorist (Bill Ayers)?

What if his most-trusted advisors on science and the environment were Communist (Van Jones), Socialist (Carol Browner), a de-development/population control  advocate (John Holdren), or a “stealth infiltration by covert agents” gov’t propaganda advocate against free speech (Cass Sunstein)?

What if he openly associated with a tax-evading, falsely accusing, race-baiting “race advisor” (Al Sharpton)?

 

Would any of that merit similar “outrage” and calls for resignation from office?

Where are the most segregated schools? In Liberal States!

Where are the most segregated schools?  In Liberal States!

Traditionally “progressive,” liberal and Democrat states are the most segregated in the country, according to UCLA Civil Rights Project researchers.

Anyone who’s travelled or experienced even a tiny part of the U.S. with open eyes, already knows this, but now it has been thoroughly studied, documented and published.

In a blow to the holier-than-thou of democratic demagogues, the study revealed that Democrat strongholds are the worst in the nation for desegregation and equal educational opportunity among American students.

Not one Southern State even ranks among the top most prejudiced and segregated!

 As reported in The Huffington Post, The Associated Press,  and New York Times:

The Nation's Most Segregated Schools Aren't Where You'd Think They'd Be

 

John Kucsera and Gary Orfield, of the UCLA  Civil Rights Project have published the results of an extensive project that covered public school enrollment between 1989 and 2010, and it is clear from the details that liberal bigotry rules, and perhaps results in the Freudian response of “projection” against their most conservative counterparts.

 "In the 30 years I have been researching schools, New York state has consistently been one of the most segregated states in the nation – no Southern state comes close to New York," Orfield said.

Other states with highly segregated schools include Illinois, Michigan and California, according to the Civil Rights Project.

Huffingron Post

 

Who would’ve guessed that New York City, Los Angeles and  Chicago are filled with, and their schools run by, racist, self-important, narcissist bigots?

Oh, yeah; anyone with half a brain!

The longitudinal study examined public and charter school enrollment, housing patterns and political attitudes to find some deeper explanation for such failure and antipathy to the most needy of their populations.

" New York state has the most segregated public schools in the nation, with many black and Latino students attending schools with virtually no white classmates … .

'To create a whole new system that's even worse than what you've got really takes some effort," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project and an author of the report.'

Orfield said the Civil Rights Project is preparing reports on several other states, including an in-depth look at California."

Associated Press: New York Schools Nation's Most Segregated: UCLA Civil Rights Project Report

 

Of course state elected officials and school district representatives saw things differently; they viewed their efforts are reflective of open-minded attitudes and policies:

" New York City Department of Education spokesman Devon Puglia [i][b]did not address the findings of the report[/i][/b], but said, "We believe in diverse classrooms in which students interact and grow through personal relationships with those of different backgrounds."

State Education Commissioner John King called the findings troubling and added, "The department has supported over the years various initiatives aimed at improving school integration and school socioeconomic integration … ."

James Merriman, CEO of the New York City Charter School Center [said] … "instead of focusing on the bogus conclusions of this study, we're going to focus on providing a great public education to all of our students, no matter where they live."

The report, which used U.S. Department of Education statistics, also noted increasing segregation in upstate cities including Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/new-york-schools-segregated_n_5034455.html

 

The authors intend to release more in-depth reports on California, Illinois and Michigan later this year, but concentrated their efforts on the nation’ largest district.

"For several decades, the state has been more segregated for blacks than any Southern state, though the South has a much higher percent of African American students," the authors wrote. The report, "New York State’s Extreme School Segregation," looked at 60 years of data up to 2010, from various demographics and other research."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/new-york-schools-segregated_n_5034455.html

I hope the authors and their teams are thorough in their study and thoroughly debunk the long-sustained myth that Democrats and their socio-political and  welfare policies are beneficial to minorities in the U. S.

By the way, did anyone see the reports on this ground-breaking study on ABS, CBS, NBC or MSNBC broadcasts last night?

I didn’t think so.

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

"There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony."
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

Moore helped found Greenpeace to protest nuclear weapons testing in Alaska.  His group transformed into an environmental protection  organization, whose tactics became more radical and lawless over time; and has since been a critic of radical environmentalism. He now heads up Ecosense Environmental.

Moore’s comments come after Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama declared global warming not only a “fact,” but a matter of national security rivaling weapons of mass destruction.

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

 

 

New Study Acknowledges Temperature Hiatus, Blames Volcanoes!

Ever since it was first recognized as a real phenomenon, the “pause” in global temperature increases (and increasing divergence from climate model projections), has been wished-away by the die-hard faithful, or explained-away by speculative grant-mongers, despite a complete lack of evidence, as  migrating to the deep ocean waters. 

Now, a new “study” not only accepts and reinforces the reality of the model-defying hiatus, but attempts to explain it away, at least in part, as the result of volcanism.

Someone needs to call John Kerry and his boss, and let them in on the secret: natural processes are driving temperature movement on Earth!

The article reported in Nature Geoscience also goes further, acknowledging decreased solar radiance and insolation as part of the explanation:

“Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.

Eruptions of at least 17 volcanoes since 2000 … ejected sulfur whose sun-blocking effect had been largely ignored until now by climate scientists, it said.
The pace of rising world surface temperatures has slowed since an exceptionally warm 1998, heartening those who doubt that an urgent, trillion-dollar shift to renewable energies from fossil fuels is needed to counter global warming.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/23/us-climate-volcanoes-idUSBREA1M0W920140223?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=76

 

But wait, there’s more!  The paper’s authors not only acknowledge the lack of significant temperature rise despite explosive growth in CO2 emissions, they look to other factors, including solar irradiance as possible explanations for the models’ miserable failures to anticipate the lack of warming to match the CO2 rise.

 
"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.
"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.”

A “complex detective story?"

Didn’t those eminent “climate scientists,” Gore, Kerry and Obama just tell the U.S. and the world that we all must be punished with 40% higher energy costs because “the science is settled?”

Apparently, Dr. Santer and his colleagues from across the globe didn’t hear or weren’t listening.

 “Santer said other factors such as a decline in the sun's output, linked to a natural cycle of sunspots, or rising Chinese emissions of sun-blocking pollution could also help explain the recent slowdown in warming.

The study suggested that volcanoes accounted for up to 15 percent of the difference between predicted and observed warming this century. All things being equal, temperatures should rise because greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated highs.”

 

Of course, there will be AGW fanatics who will contend that this is misunderstood or disinformation from the “skeptics.” Unfortunately for the faithful, the article itself gives a summation that should erase their denial of fact and science:

“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming.”

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

 

This will be discounted by the acolytes, priests and faithful of the AGW grant-mongering class, who will continue to scream that “the science is settled,” and that “the consensus” must always be right to assist in their denial of reality and the increasing evidence of factors other than mankind in the changing climate.

jw

 

Here's the Rwuter's article in question:

 

"Sun-dimming volcanoes partly explain global warming hiatus-study"

 

(Reuters) - Small volcanic eruptions help explain a hiatus in global warming this century by dimming sunlight and offsetting a rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases to record highs, a study showed on Sunday.

Eruptions of at least 17 volcanoes since 2000, including Nabro in Eritrea, Kasatochi in Alaska and Merapi in Indonesia, ejected sulfur whose sun-blocking effect had been largely ignored until now by climate scientists, it said.

The pace of rising world surface temperatures has slowed since an exceptionally warm 1998, heartening those who doubt that an urgent, trillion-dollar shift to renewable energies from fossil fuels is needed to counter global warming.

Explaining the hiatus could bolster support for a U.N. climate deal, due to be agreed by almost 200 governments at a summit in Paris in late 2015 to avert ever more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

"This is a complex detective story," said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes.

"Volcanoes are part of the answer but there's no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus," he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts.

Volcanoes are a wild card for climate change - they cannot be predicted and big eruptions, most recently of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can dim global sunshine for years.

Santer said other factors such as a decline in the sun's output, linked to a natural cycle of sunspots, or rising Chinese emissions of sun-blocking pollution could also help explain the recent slowdown in warming.

The study suggested that volcanoes accounted for up to 15 percent of the difference between predicted and observed warming this century. All things being equal, temperatures should rise because greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated highs.

TEMPORARY RESPITE

"Volcanoes give us only a temporary respite from the relentless warming pressure of continued increases in carbon dioxide," said Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds.

A study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year suggested that natural variations in the climate, such as an extra uptake of heat by the oceans, could help explain the warming slowdown at the planet's surface.

The IPCC projected a resumption of warming in coming years and said that "substantial and sustained" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions were needed to counter climate change.

It also raised the probability that human activities were the main cause of warming since 1950 to at least 95 percent from 90 in 2007. Despite the hiatus, temperatures have continued to rise - 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have been this century, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/23/us-climate-volcanoes-idUSBREA1M0W920140223?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=76

 

Dr. Santer's article is summarized here:

 

"Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature"

Benjamin D. Santer,  
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2098
Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modeling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html

 

Studies confirm: Ins coverage increases use of ER, opposite what Onamacare advocates said to sell ACA

2 studies published recently in the Journal Science confirm preliminary findings of the landmark Oregon Health Insurance Experiment.

You may recall that one of the primary reasons offered in support of Obamacare was that uninsured people, who use the ER as a default primary care health service, would be more likely to go to regular doctors and clinics for their primary, non-urgent, care if insurance was more widely available.

“The OHIE studied the usage of emergency rooms, among other things, following an increase of health insurance coverage through Medicaid.

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment is a landmark, randomized study of the effect of expanding public health insurance on the health care use, health outcomes, financial strain, and well-being of low-income adults.
...
We supplemented these data with emergency department records for an 18-month period following the lottery.
...
We found:
Emergency department visits overall ◦Medicaid increased the probability of using the emergency department by 7 percentage points (an increase of about 20 percent, relative to a base of 34.5 percent).
◦Medicaid increased the number of emergency department visits over the 18-month period by about 40 percent (0.41 visits, relative to a base of 1.02). “
www.nber.org...

The implications, as set out in the Science articles, is that healthcare costs will likely increase significantly due to increased usage of ERs for non-urgent care under Obamacare!
Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment

Straining Emergency Rooms by Expanding Health Insurance

Who would've guessed that another of the lies used to "sell" Obamacare will result in increased usage and costs, rather than reductions? So now, even if you've lost your policy, your primary care physician and specialists, you can still rely on the good old Emergency Room, and have the taxpayers pick up the tab!

This was expertly spelled-out in Slate  by an author whose spouse is a primary care Dr. who makes frequent ER referrals to her low-income patients.

Does Expanding Health Care Coverage Reduce ER Visits?
On the contrary: A new study suggests it increases visits to the emergency room—significantly.
“A few weeks ago, I was asked to write a comment to accompany a study released Thursday in Science, which shows that Medicaid access increases emergency room visits by more than 40 percent. To get a sense of how medical practitioners would respond to the findings, I asked my wife, a primary-care physician at Bellevue Hospital, whether she thought Medicaid would increase or decrease ER use by the kinds of low-income individuals who constitute her patient population. Her reaction: “I refer people to the emergency room all the time. Of course it’ll go up.”

Even if my wife and her fellow primary-care providers aren’t shocked to find their everyday experience validated by a large-scale experiment, many others will be. Public officials from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to state governors in Michigan and Ohio have cited a reduction in traffic to overstressed emergency departments as a rationale for insurance expansion. They’d do well to change their talking points.”

www.slate.com... _increase.html

How many more lies must come to light, and how high will attendant costs have to go before middle-America realizes they've been sold a bill of goods, and get rid of this robbery and top-down control of our lives and healthcare, once and for all?

jw

WFYI Hates Me (as Well as Traditional Marriage)

Our local public radio station, WFYI, 90.1 FM, www.wfyi.org, held another discussion today of the relative merits of HR3 and same-sex marriage.

The focus today was on the relative sanity and economic sense of same-sex marriage, or something close to that.  The guests were a psychologist who studied homes with children, and an HR person from Lilly.  Their basic thrusts, respectively, were that children grow up just fine in same-sex-couple homes, and that opposition to same-sex marriage costs Eli Lilly Co. (the city’s largest employer) jobs and money. 

People were invited to call, email or post questions on Facebook.

Callers were welcomed by first name, emailers “submitted” and Facebookers “posted.”  There were occasionally mysterious appearances from “a listener who didn’t want to appear on air.” 

It struck after a few calls, posts and submissions how biased the show’s host, guests and participants were in favor of same-sex marriage. I got the sense of a foregone conclusion that same-sex marriages were just fine and opposition was not only illogical, but costly to the State and its businesses. It was only occasionally that the sinister “listener who didn’t want to appear on air” would offer a quip or note that traditional marriages fostered strong, growing families; or that it didn’t deter anyone who really wanted a job from moving here.

About half-way through the show, I decided to offer what I understood has been the time-tested basis for heterosexual marriages: to foster a productive citizenry in perpetuity.

Without kids, the state dies.

Without productive citizens, the state starves.
Historically, it seemed to me, that the BEST formula to achieve both goals was through fostering long-term reproductive family units to bring up children.

So, naively, it turns out, I joined the emailers who “submitted,” and offered this:

“I have always been under the impression that the basic justification of a bias in favor of traditional marriage lies with the state’s interest in the production of reliable citizens.

Given the long recognized parens patriae doctrine that a state has a legitimate interest in its children, and that a state cannot exist without productive citizens; history has shown that the best environment that serves those objectives is a married fertile heterosexual couple.

 

 

Has this long-held belief been conclusively refuted?”

 I was sitting at the computer listening and clearing-out spam  when the host announced the intrusion of another of those ignorant brutes who didn’t want to appear on-air:

“I have always been under the impression that the basic justification … .”

A chill ran down my back as I struggled not to fall out of my chair.

Why wasn’t I an email “submitter?  How did I become the apparently-ashamed anonymous rube?

When the host, a lecturer, publisher and former educator who stumbled and mangled and gargled a little Latin phrase as he read with gritted teeth, finished, he said: “this one’s for you Dr.”

“What do you think?”

The psychologist grabbed my example by the throat, and choked the life out of it and related how course children can grow up well-adjusted with single parents, same-sex parents, or traditional families. He failed to throw-in “Well, Duh,” mercifully.

But that wasn’t what I asked; I asked whether history has taught us that traditional families were BEST?

Of course, when a (planted?) emailer wondered whether same-sex families can produce well-adjusted children who contribute to society, the control room shuddered with excitement.

But they never answered my question; and the host cast me and my proposition as so backward and embarrassing that I refused to identify myself.  I guess I should’ve known.

 

Wait ‘til they hear what I think of “Universal Pre-K.”

 

jw

I don't really have anything to add to what's said here, except, maybe, "I told you so."

From Jim Geraghty and the National Review:

Three Lies to the Public That Must Have Consequences

From the first Morning Jolt of the week… A National Security Agency leak tells me many of you are already subscribers, but some of you aren’t. If you’re not already a subscriber, click on the link or look for the box in the upper right hand of your screen.

Three Administration Lies to the Public That Must Have a Consequence
President Obama, speaking to the American public, Friday afternoon:

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

In the specific issue that Obama is discussing, i.e., oversight of the National Security Agency’s vast data collection on American citizens, there is the problem in that no one within that system of oversight has the role or duty to speak on behalf of those being monitored, or about to be monitored. The executive branch knows what it wants – it wants to monitor people. The Congress may or may not want to advocate the argument, “hey, that person hasn’t done anything wrong, you have no good reason to collect that information on them” – judging from what we now know, no one argued that perspective very strongly. And the oversight of the judicial branch is pretty weak when we know the Department of Justice goes “judge shopping” when their initial requests are rejected. If the executive branch can keep going to new judges until they get the decision they want, there isn’t really much of a check on their power, now is there?
Regarding that alleged Congressional oversight, Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, is coming awfully close to accusing the president of lying:

“Since government officials have repeatedly told the public and Congress that Patriot Act authorities are simply analogous to a grand jury subpoena, and that intelligence agencies do not collect information or dossiers on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, I think the executive branch has an obligation to explain whether or not these statements are actually true,” Wyden said.

Wyden’s suspicion is driven by a lie he appears to have been told under oath, one we’ll look at in a moment. But more generally, we have seen quite a few folks in the executive branch abuse the public’s trust and then see no real consequences for it.
LIE ONE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s November 28 explanation about changes made to talking points about the Benghazi attack:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” because “consulate” was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

You can see the twelve rounds of revisions here, well more than a single adjustment, and mostly in response to State Department objections.
After it became clear that Carney had put forth false information, he dug in deeper, insisting that the twelve rounds of revisions were merely “stylistic changes.” Carney paid for his lie with two days of hostile questions from the White House Press Corps… and then the storm seemed to have blown over.
LIE TWO: Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, May 15:

“Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.”

Michael Isikoff later reported the precise opposite: The Justice Department pledged Friday to to review its policies relating to the seizure of information from journalists after acknowledging that a controversial search warrant for a  Fox News reporter’s private emails  was approved “at the highest levels” of the Justice Department, including “discussions” with Attorney General  Eric Holder.
There is a claim from the usual suspects – Media Matters – that Holder is in the clear because he was asked about prosecutions for publishing classified information, not solicitation for classified information; they assert that the two actions are totally different. A pretty thin reed for a perjury defense, and one that utterly fails the standard of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States informing the public of his department’s operations.
For us to believe that, it would mean that during the entire Justice Department discussion of prosecuting Fox News’ James Rosen for soliciting the information, no one suggested or mentioned prosecuting Rosen for publishing it. Remember, Holder didn’t just say he didn’t agree with that idea; he said he never heard of the idea.
LIE THREE: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 12, responding to questions from Wyden, Democrat of Oregon:

Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” 

The subsequent explanation from Clapper: “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that,” Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
But that’s not what he was asked, nor was it even close to what he was asked. In fact, the light from what he was asked takes several years to reach a question about voyeurism.
If your excuse is that you are incapable of discerning what ‘any type of data at all’ means, you are no longer allowed to have a job title that has the word ‘intelligence’ in it.
This weekend, the Guardian reported, “During a 30-day period in March 2013, the documents indicate, the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of intelligence from within the United States.”
Two of these three were under oath before Congress; the other was to the press, with the cameras rolling, on a topic of high public interest and great controversy.
If Obama were to ask for the resignations of Carney, Holder, and Clapper tomorrow, all of us who don’t trust him would have to at least acknowledge that he’s trying to set a better standard for consequences of lying to the public. But all of us know that he will do nothing of the sort.
Instead, he will continue to give speeches where he expresses incredulity that the public wouldn’t trust him and his administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/350616/three-lies-public-must-have-consequences-jim-geraghty

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government” Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government”  Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

 

Way back when CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson split from the sycophantic MSM and began frankly reporting the Fast & Furious scandal in unflinching honesty, Obama’s White House and Dept. of Justice began harassing her for refusing to ‘do what the other reporters are doing,’ and putting Obama and Holder in a bad light.

MSM Cover-Up Confirmed by "Bordergate" Reporter! Whitehouse Furious for Not Complying![/url]

 Now, reporters once considered “friends” or “safe” are being singled out, threatened with loss of access and credentials, and verbally abused for their similar refusal to toe the Obama White House line.

 

Last week, BobWoodward took the Obama spin on the sequester head-on and revealed how he had led the way with it during budget negotiations.

"Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened? …

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

He immediately drew the wrath of not just the White House insiders, but of those in the MSM seeking to re-affirm their allegiance and commitment to all things Obama.

"Appearing on CNN Wednesday, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said a “very senior person” at the White House warned him that he would “regret doing this,” referring to his outspoken criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the impending forced cuts known as the sequester.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward told CNN host Wolf Blitzer. Woodward apparently went on to criticize Obama further over the sequester the same day he received the warning from the White House.

“It makes me very uncomfortable for the White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”[/exnews]

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-very-senior-white-house-official-warned-me-id-regret-attacking-obama-over-the-sequester/[/url]

[url]http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-on-white-house-threat-it-makes-me-very-uncomfortable-to-have-the-white-house-telling-reporters-youre-going-to-regret-doing-something-that-you-believe-in/[/url]

 

Of course, those members of the MSM pro-Obama clique immediately attacked Woodward, instead of the underlying story!

[exnews] Progressives are throwing a series of virtual flowerpots at veteran journalist Bob Woodward, following his stepped-up criticism of President Barack Obama’s attempt to raise taxes by hyping the sequester budget trims. …

The pile-on by the president’s allies follows Woodward’s recent statements that Obama is walking away from the 2011 budget-deal by calling for more tax increases, that he is hyping the impact of the sequester cuts, and that he was allegedly threatened by Obama’s top economic adviser, Gene Sperling.

The supposed threat came Feb. 22 when Sperling tried to get Woodward to back down from his conclusion that Obama is “moving the goalposts” from the 2011 budget deal.[/exnews]

[url]http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/woodward-under-fire-as-white-house-allies-seek-to-discredit-sequester-reporting/[/url]

Even so,Woodward stood steadfast, going so far as to describe the Obama administration’s behavior as “madness.”

[exnews] "Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-republicans-2013-2[/url]

 

Now, we learn that the Obama White House was not limited in its anger and vitriol to just one reporter; but, that it has spread to include others who’ve considered themselves “friends” and supporters of the Obama administration.

 

Lanny Davis, President Clinton’s former aide, has gone ‘on the record’ to recount a similar scenario of vicious attacks and not-so-veiled threats to their livelihoods and those of their employers.

[exnews]Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."[/exnews]

[url]http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0[/url]

[url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/28/longtime-dem-lanny-davis-also-reports-white-house-threat] Longtime Dem Lanny Davis Also Reports White House Threat[/url]

 

As if these were not enough, former Obama ally Ron Fournier, of the same [i]Washington Times[/i], reports that he too has been subjected to such viciousness that he has terminated his relationship with a formerly valuable White House insider due to his contact’s defense of the Obama agenda and verbal abuse and threats.

[exnews] Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.

Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.

 …

I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. … The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228[/url]

 

The MSM has not only abandoned its obligations to “speak truth to power,” but is fighting over who can remain closest to the White House; which has created its own media apparatus, “Organizing For Action” (OFA). To curry favor and ensure acceptance from Obama and his closest advisers, they are ever more resolute in their determination to join the team of presidential advisers, spin-meisters and spokespeople.

[url= http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-press-officially-abdicates-its-role/] The Press Officially Abdicates Its Role[/url]

Now, those who’ve abandoned the chase, and returned to their journalistic roots are paying the price in loss of opportunity, access and the support of their colleagues.

 

So, who says “there’s no such thing as media bias,” now; when even the White House believes it can safely threaten those who no longer toe the line?

 

 

Jw

"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data PROVES No Warming!

I often look at news and information sites and sources for views that are NOT the same as my own.

I often find things that aren't available elsewhere, and which can be truly enlightening. I especially enjoy foreign sources who have no agenda on U. S. political or social issues.

Reviewing the latest information from pro-AGW advocates, I came across a "tool" that gave trends and statistical analysis of climate data. What a surprise!

Actually, the "no warming" is proven by several independent studies AND supported by the pro-AGW site "skeptical science."

Here's what their own data reveal (recently acknowledged and cited by such AGW "luminaries" as Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and the MET Office) for land sea and satellite observations:

Satellite
For RSS, NO significant warming for 23 years.
Trend 0.130 ± 0.136 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.143 ± 0.173 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Land/ocean
For Hacrut3, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.098 ±- 0.113 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hacrut4, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.098 ± 0.111 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS, NO significant warming for 17 years.
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

For NOAA, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.090 ± 0.106 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Land
For NOAA, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.139 ± 0.203 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997

For BEST, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.182 ± 0.243 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
...

These guys are often cited as authority for "debunking" AGW skeptics, but their own figures support the lack of significant warming.

What alarmists ignore is that the IPCC and many other warmists have "projected" an exponential increase in temperature correlative with the rise of CO2 (e.g., the "Hockey Stick" illusion).

This is clearly and undeniably NOT happening; the the alomst oracle-like "models" and "projections" are wrong.

What the AGW dogma ignores is that the temperature plateaued when it would have skyrocketed if their "climate science" was even a close approximation of reality.

You either deliberately ignore this, or you choose to misdirect with an incomplete comparison of trends.

CO2 levels are growing across the globe in "developing" countries and economies (while the US and some parts of the EU have seen declines). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far above what alarmists have contended would pass a "tipping point" beyond which average land and ocean temperatures would rise faster than ever before.

That is NOT happening.

Of course, one of the principal determinants of true science is "falsifiability;" and this incongruence of reality and predition renders the entire AGW alarmism FALSE. The hypothesis has been disporven,, as even Jim Hansen this week acknowledged.

The ever-liberal Economist has for years toed the official UK political line that AGW is real. But, even now they acknowledge that the science is not settled.

 

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
. . .
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. . . The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs [Global Circulation Models]. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures.

www.economist.com...

Here's the illustration the Economist uses to illustrate part of its recognition of the failure of AGW alarmisism:

Here it is annotated:

And, what are some of the results of this ignorant denialism, according to the article?

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

www.economist.com...

It's so ironic and laughable to see the AGW faithful now assuming the role of "DENIERS" as their models fall apart before their eyes; and, as the predictions, assumptions and projections of 30, 20, and 10 years ago are time after time proven FALSE!

Climate is alway changing.
AGW acolytes seem to ignore the cycles:
the “Great Medieval Warm Period” (800 to 1300), the “Little Ice Age” (1500 to 1850), and smaller trends like a cooling period between 1880 and 1915… a warming period from 1915 to 1945… a cooling period in the first half of the 20th Century!!

But they also ignore the fact that their models are absolutely unable to account for the plateau while CO2 SOARS.

They have used the epithet of "Denier" as if it proved that their views of science and climate are invariable and incapable of challenge.

 

deny ignorance
indeed

jw