The Climate Change Racket is Doing Nothing but Making Liberals Rich ⋆ The Constitution

It is common for environmentalist anthropogenic global warming promoters to accuse “deniers” of being paid off by oil companies.  In spite of decades of such accusations they have produced no evidence, witnesses or documents.  In private money alone environmental groups outspend “deniers.” “Deniers” raise $46 million annually for 91 “think tanks,” according to Forbes analysts. That was one-sixth of Greenpeace’ 2011 budget of $260 million, and they are only one of many environmental groups. There is big money in pushing panic over a gas labeled an insignificant “trace gas” in air by the only real atmospheric scientists, meteorologists.

Al Gore, former Vice President, increased his net worth from $700,000 in 2000 AD to $175 million in 2015 AD. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made $218 million in profits between 2008 AD and 2011 AD from a carbon trading company they co-founded.  Albert Gore, Jr. has a remarkable record of investing in companies just before they got multi-million Dollar grants.  Now how could that happen?

Elon Musk has never made a dime of profit, but has a net worth in excess of one billion Dollars that have obviously come from the $5 billion in Federal loan guarantees he got in return for a $110,000 contribution to the Obama 2008 Presidential campaign.

In 2014, Musk got another $1.4 billion from Nevada taxpayers to build a “gigafactory” for his electric car company Tesla Motors. Musk’s SolarCity also got a large stipend for a Nevada move.  None of Tesla’s or SolarCity’s products are economically competitive or viable.  Solar energy plants and electric cars cost up to 20 times as much as those using petroleum for operation.

Billionaire Warren Buffett  invested heavily in electric utilities, including NV Energy and has taken advantage of subsidized “green” energy while investing $30 billion in it.

Indian billionaire Vinod Khosla poured over a billion Dollars of his and his government’s money, into 50 green energy startups.  He has had some of green tech’s most spectacular failures. Despite repeated flops, he is still able to pour other people’s money into green energy investing in ethanol, which is heavily dependent on federal mandates requiring gasoline sold in the U.S. contain 15% ethanol.   Anything above that and the engines gag.

The Daily Kos says CO2 is evil, but  there are no Penguins at the North Pole.
The Daily Kos says CO2 is evil, but
there are no Penguins at the North Pole.

Ethanol tax credits are estimated to have cost the federal government up to $40 billion between 1978 and 2012 and it is a poor motor fuel that attracts water from the atmosphere and if stored for a few months damages engines.  Khosla’s KiOR ethanol company went bankrupt in 2014 costing the state of Mississippi $75 million for Khosla’s $500 million factory to employ 1,000 Mississippians.  Sorry about that…

Film director James Cameron profited immensely from environmentalism claiming  “We need to mobilize like we did in World War II to fight global warming.  When asked about scientists skeptical of global warming he said, “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads. Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.”  Meanwhile the environmental panic film “Avatar” netted Cameron over $650 million, making him one of the richest directors of all time with an estimated net worth of $700 million for a film promoting a false issue.

It is fitting our last example is a man who has made his millions in fiction as that is the truth of the matter.  The man who created this false issue in which a trace gas in the atmosphere is deemed capable of controlling it when that is easily shown to be false, but to cover their crimes the promoters of this fraud have committed an even larger crime by teaching false science to our young people.  They talk about molecular “forcing” as if there were a hierarchy of molecules with one telling another when to change state!  Intelligent atoms?  Tiny pilots?

In his personal presentations the father of anthropogenic global warming, Jim Hansen claims, “Man-made CO2 stays in the air 1,000 years!” contrary to the Wholer Principle that all molecules of one kind, regardless source, are the same.

He also ignores the Le Chatelier Principle and instead mentions the Clausius-Claperon equation as it is in Calculus and impresses 99% of the population who know nothing of it, but are impressed with the integrands, sigma signs, deltas and other such Calculus notations.  The equation actually has no bearing on the atmosphere and is notoriously in error most of the time and often patched. The most famous of which is named “Antoine.”

The Federal Government has spent about $1 trillion for government grants to promote “global warming,” now “climate change” since the 18 year cooling cycle got under way.  They have kept thousands of science Ph.D.s employed with this fraud in hopes of building more and bigger bureaus in their never-ending quest for power over us.  The ran “war” and “promoting democracy” in the ground so they have to come up with a new scam.  Money is green.

Source: The Climate Change Racket is Doing Nothing but Making Liberals Rich ⋆ The Constitution

Posted in Global Warming/Climate Change, hoax | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Establishment Republican Wants Trump To Lose So Supporters Can, “Learn Their Lesson.” (VIDEO) – DCWhispers.com

[Among the Establishment political class (the Washington DC crowd, party leadership, and professional pundits) there is not much real difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore, despite the theater of policy difference they put on for the public.
When an outsider, someone not anointed by the Establishment, is strongly favored by the public, these arrogant elitists become furious and vow to sabotage the popular candidate in order to “teach the voters a lesson”. You get the idea, vote for the candidates WE choose and approve of; we know what is best for you, leave the thinking to us.
Hopefully they will keep revealing their true nature, showing their arrogant, petulant, condescending, patronizing behavior publicly. When voters learn what the Establishment political class really thinks of them, they may teach them a lesson. ~topcat]

 

Bret Stephens is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and longtime, self-anointed Republican.

The very same kind of Establishment Republican who cannot abide a candidate like Donald Trump who has bypassed conventional political ring-kissing normally required of presidential candidates.

image: http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/bret-stephens-575×348.jpg

bret stephensNow Mr. Stephens is openly advocating that Donald Trump lose so that his supporters will, “…learn their lesson.” If that means Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins in the process, then so be it:

“I most certainly will not vote for Donald Trump,” Stephens said. “I will vote for the least left-wing opponent to Donald Trump and I want to make a vote to make sure that he has — that he is the biggest loser in presidential history since, I don’t know, Alf Landon or going back further. It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents — this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form. So they have to learn a lesson in the way perhaps Democrats learned from McGovern in ’72. George Will said let’s have him lose in 50 states. Why not Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, too?”

There is a very interesting part of the above quote that came from George Will, who said, “…let’s have him lose in 50 states.”

That is a glimpse into the mindset of these people. They feel themselves to be the arbiters of what politicians should and should not win, and it is also confirmation of what so many have believed for so long – that there is hardly a difference between “Republican” and “Democrat” in America anymore when talking of the D.C. politicians and media figures using those labels to describe themselves.

Here is Mr. Stephen’s Establishment-oozing disgust of Donald Trump and Trump’s millions of supporters. He is saying so to Fareed Zakaria, (a self-described, non-practicing Muslim) who has called the Tea Party an “extremist group” that conservatives are “racists” and that people cannot love America if they understand the facts. (Mr. Zakaria believes the Constitution should be reformed because it is a too-flawed document that represents a nation born of racism.)

 

 

Source: Establishment Republican Wants Trump To Lose So Supporters Can, “Learn Their Lesson.” (VIDEO) – DCWhispers.com

Posted in Donald Trump, election, liberal intolerance/persecution, media bias, media bias, news media, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Feminist researcher invents ‘intersectional quantum physics’ to fight ‘oppression’ of Newton – The College Fix

‘Binary and absolute differences’ are ‘exploitative’

A feminist academic affiliated with the University of Arizona has invented a new theory of “intersectional quantum physics,” and told the world about it in a journal published by Duke University Press.

Whitney Stark argues in support of “combining intersectionality and quantum physics” to better understand “marginalized people” and to create “safer spaces” for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.

Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanity’s understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in “Assembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities.”

A researcher in culture and gender studies at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, Stark also holds an appointment in women’s and gender studies at the University of Arizona through its Institute for LGBT Studies.

She is a member of the Somatechnics Research Network, hosted by UA, whose scholars “reflect on the mutual inextricability of embodiment and technology.”

Stark identifies Newtonian physics as one of the main culprits behind oppression. “Newtonian physics,” she writes, has “separated beings” based on their “binary and absolute differences.”

“This structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works is embedded in many structures of classification,” according to Stark.

These structures of classification, such as male/female, or living/non-living, are “hierarchical and exploitative” and are thusly “part of the apparatus that enables oppression.”

Therefore, Stark argues in favor of combining intersectionality and quantum physics theory to fight against the imperative to classify people based on hierarchical categories.

MORE: Universities require scholars pledge commitment to diversity

‘I, being white, should not be in all spaces’

Stark also argues that the tendency to categorize people has historically hurt activism efforts by small minority groups, since their efforts are often subsumed or overshadowed by dominant identity groups.

The problems that arise when small minority groups are overshadowed by larger identity groups can be seen clearly when considering black feminist history.

“For instance, in many ‘official’ feminist histories of the United States, black/African American women’s organizing and writing are completely unaccounted for before the 1973 creation of the middle-class, professional National Black Feminist Organization,” Stark writes.

This happened because of “the frequent subsuming of intersectional identities under supposedly encompassing meta-identities,” namely, the tendency for black feminist resistance efforts to be subsumed under the broader category of feminism.

Therefore, the efforts of black feminists were often denied legitimacy within the popular press — all due to black women’s classification within binary hierarchies that privileged white women and whiteness, and therefore negated black women’s existence and efforts.

Stark also argues that by “deprioritizing” privileged people, “safer spaces” could be created for minorities. She gives the example of “deprioritizing” herself.

“For instance, I, being white, should not be in all spaces, positions of authority, or meetings,” she said, because her presence could “stall” movements towards progress.

Stark concludes her paper by hoping that the “apparatus that enables oppression” – buoyed by Newtonian physics – shifts towards “less oppressive” power dynamics.

“Hopefully, this alliance can enact ways of valuing [people] differently.”

The article was published in the “Critical Special Focus” section of the journal, which in this issue is devoted to “New Materialist Genealogies.” The Minnesota Review, which is managed out of Virginia Tech, also has a creative-writing section. The editors did not immediately respond to a request for comment on their decision to accept the article for publication.

Stark did not respond to multiple email and Facebook requests for comment from The College Fix. While she does not have any academic training in physics or quantum physics, she did complete a master’s degree in “Cyborg and Post Colonial Theory” at the University of Utrecht.

Source: Feminist researcher invents ‘intersectional quantum physics’ to fight ‘oppression’ of Newton – The College Fix

Posted in multiculturalism, political correctness, race card, Victim Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

No, You’re Not More Likely to Be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than an Islamic Terrorist – Areo Magazine

MAY 28, 2017

| by Damion Daniels |

On 22nd May, 2017, a 22 year old jihadist named Salman Ramadan Abedi wandered into the Manchester Arena during a concert populated primarily by young teens and their parents, and detonated a suicide bomb, killing 22 people including an 8 year old girl, and injuring approximately 120 others. This was the deadliest terror attack on U.K. soil since a group of jihadists murdered 52 commuters in the London transport attacks of 2005.

We are often told that in the wake of a large scale atrocity of this kind, we should defy the terrorists by simply carrying on as normal. Well, it just so happens that what I would normally be doing is writing about Islamic terrorism and berating the apologists who shamefully obfuscate the issue. Which is exactly what I intend to do now.

The fact that the two deadliest attacks upon the U.K. in recent memory were at the hands of Islamic terrorists is not simply pub trivia. I mention it because when these apologists for Islam get bored of claiming that jihadists are incessantly and inexplicably lying about their religious motivations, they invariably engage in the crass exercise of throwing around skewed data in a desperate attempt to deemphasize the danger posed by Islamic terror. As far as I can tell, this is not due to some well-meaning concern for people worrying unnecessarily, or to ensure that counter terrorism strategy is accurately focused upon the most serious threat, it seems rather to be a tactical attempt to prioritize the protection of odious 7th century folklore over the welfare of real human beings.

In the not uncommon event of an Islamic lunatic slaughtering a crowd of innocent people, Americentric articles and tweets lying about the likelihood of this happening to you, instantaneously begin to surface, like gunk from the ocean floor after a depth charge detonation.

Malhar 1.png

Each of these claims are variations on the assertion that right-wing or far-right terrorism poses a greater danger than Islamic terrorism, and they are based on several studies which attempt to make the same claims.

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by non-Muslim extremists than by jihadists,

insists this MSNBC article based on this report by research center New America.

I understand that a deconstruction of statistics may read as a little sterile and dispassionate, but I think it’s important to nip this particular line of obscurantism in the bud once and for all. And disappointingly, I’ve noticed that some high profile secularists and liberal atheists also appear to have been taken in by this propaganda which contains a multitude of errors and inconsistencies resulting in inaccurate figures and starkly misleading conclusions. For instance; the MSNBC article referenced above was published in the summer of 2015. And whilst the information contained within it is frozen at this point in time, the source report that it cites is not. The report has since been updated, and so anyone citing the article now, is citing statistics that do not include the 49 Orlando clubbers murdered the following year by ISIS inspired gunman Omar Mateen in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The updated statistics which now include this attack, along with other attacks in 2016, show that deaths from jihadist terror attacks in the U.S. are now almost double those attributable to far-right terrorists.

What’s more, this very same study that is routinely cited in order to downplay the threat of jihadism, shows not only that jihadists have claimed more fatalities in the U.S., but also that “most U.S. attacks are also carried out by individuals inspired by jihadism.”

Malhar 2.png

The practice of quoting outdated figures to further a false narrative is sloppy in some cases and outright disingenuous in others, but even when using the most up-to-date figures, there are a number of issues with the actual dataset this report relies on which further skew the statistics towards downplaying the Islamic threat. As John Sexton of Breitbart notes, the numbers here ostensibly focus on the threat to Americans, but do not take Americans killed abroad by Islamic terrorists into account. The beheading of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 7 Americans killed in the 2002 Bali Bombing, the 6 Americans killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 4 Americans killed in the 2016 Brussels bombings, the American killed in the Zamboanga City bombing, the American killed in the 2015 Bamako hotel attack, the 22 year old American student killed in the 2015 Paris attacks, for example, are all absent from these figures. Nor do the figures take into account the number of Islamic plots foiled as a result of the asymmetric counter-terrorism focus placed upon jihadism as a result of 9/11. As former counter-terrorism analyst Daryl Johnson acknowledges:

The U.S. government currently employs hundreds of analysts focused on Islamic extremism, but only a couple dozen who monitor domestic terror.

Fortunately I didn’t need to undertake a great deal of arduous research to find this quote. Why? Because it’s mentioned in the very same MSNBC article that is routinely circulated as proof that Islamic terrorism is essentially a non-issue in comparison to “far-right” terrorism.

The lopsidedness of this report is also evident in the fact that, according to the article, it treats terrorists with an Islamist agenda as one dataset, and compares it to terrorists with a white supremacist agenda, terrorists with an anti-government agenda, and terrorist with a fundamentalist Christian agenda, by treating all three non-Islamic motivations as one dataset. This is not an apples to apples comparison. This is an apples to fruit bowl comparison.

But surely the most blatant and deliberate skewing of the numbers here is in the fact that the biggest terror attack in the history of the United States is discounted by beginning the tally on 12th September 2001. Florida State College Professor Andrew Holt issued a thorough debunking of this report and the methods it uses. In it he points out that if one were to start the clock a day earlier and therefore include the approximately three thousand innocent lives taken on 9/11, then “there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist.”

Another more recent report created by the Government Accountability Office and promoted by the CATO Institute claims that since 12th September 2001 (there’s that date again) there have been 62 traditional right-wing extremist “incidents” that resulted in death, compared to only 23 attributed to radical Islamic violence. However, this report doesn’t focus on death toll, and instead concentrates solely on the number of incidents. This misleading way of determining threat is then spun by the CATO institute as 73 percent of attacks being committed by right-wing groups even though the report states that 52.8 percent of deaths were at the hands of jihadists:

“Attacks by domestic or ‘homegrown’ violent extremists in the United States resulted in 225 fatalities… Of these, 106 were killed by far right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents, and 119 were victims of radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents.”

To reiterate; the threat level here is being determined by incident count rather than body count, so although jihadists killed more people, they are painted as being less of a risk. The ludicrousness of this methodology is inadvertently illustrated by Benjamin Dixon on the David Pakman Show:

They’re not counting the number of people killed, they’re counting the number of events. So technically they could throw in September 11th and still get about the same result” he says, and therefore “we have more of a reason to be fearful of Billy-Bob (if I can be stereotypical) than we do of Ahmed.”

Dixon can only make such a ludicrous statement if he treats one incident in which one person is killed, and another incident in which four airliners are hijacked and slammed into buildings causing 3000 deaths, as equal. Which he does. And his ridiculous way of measuring threat is in keeping with the same methodology used in the GOA report.

Furthermore, the proportionality of terror attacks attributable to Islamic extremism does not factor in the scarcity of Muslims in the U.S population.

Muslim adults comprise less than 1% of the U.S population, and yet according to this study, are responsible for a whopping 27% of the terrorism in the country. This is a significant overrepresentation among such a tiny minority and, as expected, is completely overlooked in this report.

One of the most common articles I see routinely bandied around in the aftermath of Islamic massacres is a 2015 piece by Ian Millhiser for the political news blog ThinkProgress with the startling headline: “You Are More Than 7 Times as Likely to Be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than by Muslim Terrorists.” Needless to say, this suspicious piece suffers from many of the same failures as the previous reports and articles. Additionally it gets its figures from two different source reports. The figure of 50 deaths that it claims resulted from Islamic terrorism comes from Charles Kurzman’s 2014 report which omits both 9/11 and the Orlando Nightclub shooting, whereas the figure of 254 deaths from far-right terrorism comes from a study by Arie Perliger which fails to provide any detail as to which attacks this figure is comprised of, and therefore prevents any kind of cross-checking of this dubious figure.

Oddly enough, the “7 times as likely” claim which Millhiser leads with is made nowhere in the New York Times article referenced in his piece, nor is it made anywhere in the Arie Perliger study which both articles cite as their source. In fact the actual figures quoted in Millhiser’s article refute his own headline.

Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that “far-right terrorism” (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

  • A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
  • A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
  • A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
  • A tally which misreports certain attacks as “right-wing” or “far-right”.
  • A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
  • A report which ignores foiled plots.
  • A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.
  • A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the “far-right” bracket.
  • A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

This narrow focus on terrorism committed within U.S. borders is particularly galling. According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index published by Institute for Economics and Peace, only 2.6 percent of terror related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world’s terror related deaths in 2015 — and Islamic State and Boko Haram were responsible for over half of the world’s terrorism fatalities between them. It’s likely that there has been some fluctuation in these figures since the publishing of this data, but the point remains that the overwhelming majority of terror attacks occur in countries outside of the West and that they are committed by Islamic extremists. And so the insistence that our gaze should never stray from terrorism within U.S. borders further skews that data and buries the victims of these attacks figuratively, often before they’ve even been buried literally.

It’s often said, that the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims. This is undoubtedly true. It’s odd then that those who claim to concern themselves with the welfare of Muslims should spend so much of their time smugly undermining threats to their safety. I’m sure the families of Shiite day laborers eviscerated in Baghdad marketplaces by Sunni suicide bombers are grateful to American “progressives” to be told that Islamic terrorism is far less of a problem in the United States and is therefore essentially irrelevant. I’m sure that the families of secular bloggers hacked to death with machetes and swords in Bangladesh are open to the idea that their lives are not as important as those of American abortion doctors, for instance.

Ironically, those of us concerned about the global impacts of Islam, are routinely accused of xenophobia and bigotry, often by the very same people who demand that we measure threat by ignoring Islamic terrorism in foreign states. They seem to be arguing that as long as jihadism is negligible in the good ole U.S. of A, then it’s as though the threat to “foreigners” in the rest of the world is of little to no concern. I must say, that sounds a lot like bigotry and xenophobia to me.

One of the peddlers of these chauvinistically selective figures is writer and professional Islamic apologist Nathan Lean. In response to the San Bernardino attack in which a jihadist couple massacred 14 people and injured another 22, Lean decided to wheel out a standard, tactlessly timed factoid once again in an attempt to downplay the threat.

Malhar 4.png

Lean came perilously close to learning the danger of his obfuscation the hard way when Istanbul airport in Turkey was the scene of an ISIS gun and bomb attack which left 41 people dead and over 230 injured the day after he had caught a flight from it.

Malhar 5.png

Many well-meaning people have been hoodwinked by these reports, seemingly due to a legitimate concern over a general increase in far-right sentiment. However, their circulation and citation by Islamic apologists like Lean, is a deliberate attempt to limit the problem of Islam solely to terrorism, then to further limit it to terrorism on U.S. soil, and then to extinguish even that concern with a firehose of deceitful nonsense.

None of which is to say that far-right terrorism is not an issue. Far-right sentiment is to be condemned, and any increase in its prevalence is a worry. But the prevalence and threat of Islamic terrorism is a perfectly legitimate area of concern and focus in its own right. Particularly, one would think, in the immediate aftermath of an Islamically inspired bloodbath. And this insistence on changing the subject to the far-right in response to it is not dissimilar to mounting a sustained campaign of vocal objection to cancer research on the basis that diabetes kills people too. It’s a textbook example of whataboutery, and it’s a response which is becoming infuriatingly endemic. Scarcely a few hours after a Muslim refugee in Stockholm ploughed a truck through crowds of pedestrians killing 5 people including an 11 year old girl who was literally ripped in half, and injuring 15 others, The Irish Times published a disgraceful article worrying about how this ISIS inspired butchery would be used as political capital by the Swedish far-right.

Immediately hijacking any conversation on the detrimental impacts of Islam as an ideology, and redirecting it towards the likes of Anders Breivik and Thomas Mair is often intended not only to whitewash the global phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, but also to divert focus away from Islam entirely, including scrutiny of its role in Female Genital Mutilation, honour violence, religiously mandated spousal abuse, blasphemy codes, the persecution of religious and sexual minorities, the subjugation of women, the grooming and sexual exploitation of girls, the murder of apostates, the dehumanization of unbelievers, the indoctrination of children, the contempt for liberalism, the surrender of critical thought, and the systematic bludgeoning to death of free expression. If we could solve the problem of Islamic terrorism tomorrow, or if it truly was the rare, barely perceptible inconvenience that the apologists claim, my concerns over the real-world effects of Islam would barely have taken a dent.

But it is simply a fact that Islamic terrorism is currently the deadliest form of terrorism on the global stage. I care about that for several reasons, but primarily because I care about the victims of Islamic terrorism. I care about the people who are routinely maimed and murdered as a result of the toxic influences of archaic superstition on a 21st Century world. And I care about these victims no matter where they reside globally, no matter what their race, no matter what their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion, or their skin color. I care about them whether they are Bangladeshi secularists pulled apart by Islamists blades, whether they are French cartoonists gunned down for defying Islamic blasphemy laws, whether they are Pakistani Sufis incinerated in Lahore for being the wrong kind of Muslims, or whether they are British children blown to pieces and lacerated by shrapnel in a Manchester concert hall. I care about them all and I want it to stop. I can’t for a second see how the people who make it their life’s work to obfuscate and dismiss this issue can even begin to say the same.

—————————

Damion Daniels is a writer focusing on religion, secularism, and free expression with an emphasis on Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. You can connect with him on Twitter @concretemilk

Source: No, You’re Not More Likely to Be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than an Islamic Terrorist – Areo Magazine

Posted in disinformation, Islam, Islam apologists, Jihad, media bias, media bias, neoliberals, news media, political correctness, terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Media Spreads Fake News About Ivanka Trump

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal‘s Carole Lee wrote a perfectly accurate story about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pledging to donate $100 million to a World Bank fund for women entrepreneurs. The article noted that the fund was Ivanka Trump’s idea and that she was at the event where the pledge was announced.

When Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Ballhaus tweeted out a link to her colleague’s story, she spun it in such a way as to add inaccuracies. First she reclassified a World Bank fund as a fund belonging to Ivanka Trump.

Then she claimed that the donation from the two countries were therefore akin to what Trump pilloried Hillary Clinton for.

Clinton was criticized by Trump and others for issues surrounding the billions of dollars her charity raised, and the millions of dollars taken in by Clinton family members for speeches. The Clinton Foundation received money from countries at the same time they had business before Secretary of State Clinton. Clinton’s husband Bill received huge sums of cash for speeches given to groups that also had business before the U.S. government. (This 2008 New York Times story shows a bit about how the Clintons greased skids to secure deals in ways that some found questionable.)

Ballhaus’ tweets, which went viral, were followed by others that did the same. Here’s a New York Times investigative reporter:

CNN reporter Jim Sciutto who, even for a former Obama political appointee, stands out for his partisanship, made the false claim that a donation to a World Bank fund was “virtually identical” to the ethical problems raised by the Clintons.

A Wall Street Journal writer noted the false news being promulgated by the tweet:

CNN contributor Ana Navarro’s tweet falsely suggesting an Ivanka charity was receiving Saudi money was shared tens of thousands of times:

CNN’s story on the donation, spun in a harshly critical fashion, began:

Just two days into President Donald Trump’s debut foreign trip, a member of his inner-circle has already reaped benefits to the tune of $100 million.

The bullet-point “highlights” of the story were, and I kid you not:

The fund aims to provide to female entrepreneurs with financial support in the form of capital and access to networking
But the fund could open the President up to charges of hypocrisy

Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on media, politics, and public policy last week reported its research showing that 93 percent of all Trump news from CNN was negative. Ninety-three percent. It is perhaps worth noting that CNN managed to completely botch its report on the Shorenstein study this weekend.

The false information about the donation was also spread by journalists at other media outlets and liberal actor George Takei. As Sohrab Ahmari noted, “It went from a donation to the World Bank (the truth) to ‘Ivanka Fund’ and now ‘Ivanka’s charity’” courtesy of Takei:

There are three reasons that this fake news went viral, in no particular order.

1) The original report on the fund, from a new online site called Axios, was imprecise. That publication reported that Ivanka Trump had begun building a massive fund and referred to it as her fund. As the Washington Post‘s David Fahrenthold explained, though, “the first daughter would have no role in raising money for such a fund or deciding where its money would be spent, a Trump administration official said.” He noted that the idea for a fund for women entrepreneurs was Ivanka Trump’s, but that the World Bank and White House issued a statement that the fund would be managed by the World Bank.

2) The Trump family has a lack of transparency. President Donald Trump chose not to release his tax returns, unlike every major-party presidential candidate in recent decades. Because he has significant business interests around the globe, the American public has reasonable questions that have not been answered regarding any potential conflicts of interest.

3) A cartoonish hostility in the media to Trump. Finally, reporters, pundits, and activists (but I repeat myself!) are so hostile to Trump that they are willing to push out negative stories without checking out the underlying facts. More is expected of journalists, who already have very little credibility with readers.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

Source: The Media Spreads Fake News About Ivanka Trump

Posted in disinformation, Donald Trump, media bias, media bias, news media, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The End of Global Warming by Art Horn, Energy Tribune 

Friday, December 4th 2009, 5:13 AM EST

The story of manmade global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.
That said, climate change is real. The earth has been coming out of a 450-year cold era known as the “Little Ice Age” since it bottomed out in the late 1600s. Hundreds of studies have verified the existence of this cold period. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to erase the climate history of the last 1,000 years in its 2001 report. They replaced all the peer-reviewed studies of past climate with one that fit their needs. The now-discredited “hockey stick” graph showed virtually no significant change in temperature of the world over the last 1,000 years. Conveniently, the graph then showed a rapid and abrupt increase in global temperature during the last 100 years. This is, of course, due to our sin of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of global warming.

The only evidence that human activity is causing global warming comes from computer models. These models take what the people who develop them know about how the earth’s climate system works and attempt to predict the future. Computer models are not evidence. Evidence is something real, something concrete that is not subject to change. Computer models can be changed by their creator. In fact the creator of the model can make it say whatever the creator wants it to say by adjusting parameters. That is not evidence.

In 2007, a study showed the failings of computer model forecasts. The models showed that there exists a global warming “fingerprint” in the air. This fingerprint is a dramatic warming of the atmosphere, not on the ground, but 20,000 to 50,000 feet in the air above the tropics. The 2007 study revealed that real-world temperature observations by weather balloons over a 50-year period showed no global warming fingerprint at all, none. The computer models had grossly overestimated the warming over the tropics. Real world observations trump computer models. Despite this revelation the climate alarmists continued to trumpet the coming doom if we don’t change our sinful ways. To do otherwise would threaten government grants to colleges and universities, research facilities and government agencies. Large corporations are developing eco-friendly technologies to replace fossil fuels and brokerage houses are looking to cash in big time on the evolving carbon trading markets. The United Nations is looking to use climate treaties to wrestle control of carbon emissions from independent nations. This will elevate the United Nations and its leaders to the role of effectively ruling the world’s energy consumption through one world-government authority.

The greenhouse/global warming theory states that as more carbon dioxide is pumped into the air, the atmosphere’s ability to vent excess heat to space will diminish. This is the mantra of global warming alarmism. More carbon dioxide means more heat gets clogged up in the climate system and the earth gets warmer and warmer. From this we have conjured up all the various climate disasters, movies, concerts, fixes, and swindles, with their varied political and economic benefactors and victims.

Enter 2009 and a new study by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi from MIT that uses temperature data from satellites. As background we start with the predictions. The climate models say that as the oceans warmed by one degree Celsius from the 1980s into the 1990s, the amount of heat escaping to space would decrease. More heat would be trapped in the atmosphere, ultimately due to the burning of fossil fuels. The warming of the oceans was natural and part of the large multi-decadal temperature changes that have been known for years. Now if only we had a way to measure the amount of heat going out to space, then we could get some answers. We do, it’s called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE). It was in orbit above the earth measuring outgoing long wave radiation (heat) for 16 years from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. This is very significant. Now we had a tool, and real world data, that we could compare to the computer model predictions. It is the ultimate climate system umpire.

The results from the Lindzen and Choi study were stunning. The computer models, all 11 of them, predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true, then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing. But the satellite data used by the Lindzen and Choi inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong. If the atmosphere is not trapping heat generated by warming oceans then there is no manmade global warming taking place.

The atmosphere compensated for the additional heat by opening the window a little more. The theory of global warming is lying on the canvas bloodied and dying. Alarmists will attempt to revive the carcass with even louder cries of impending doom and calls to repent. But this clamoring will fall on deaf ears. Science will ultimately prove the winner and the world will bury global warming in an icy grave where it belongs.

Art Horn is a meteorologist who has worked for CBS, NBC and ABC

Source: The End of Global Warming by Art Horn, Energy Tribune | Climate Realists

Posted in Global Warming/Climate Change | Tagged | Leave a comment

Economic Edge: The Viscous Nature of Oil in Winter…

…Economic “winter” that is!

The more expensive the oil, the more everything costs. Every step of production is influenced by oil’s price. As price rises, it acts as a tax on the consumer. Given a constant income level, spending more on energy means spending less on other goods and services which themselves also cost more.

The one part of Mike Ruppert’s movie “Collapse” that I always remember is the scene where he explains that never ending growth is impossible on limited energy. Of course many have explained this, but his explanation of how he foresaw the economic “collapse” unfolding involved oil prices shooting higher until a certain price was reached that strangled the economy. Oil price would then fall back down for awhile, and as the economy recovered oil would rise again to the point that it slowed the economy yet again, and thus we would have a rolling collapse as oil repeatedly reached an unsustainable price. Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency” also echoes this theme.

Collin Campbell predicted this “bumpy plateau” effect to be a sign of peak oil. Below is his chart illustrating this point…

Take the following chart with a grain of salt, however it does depict the “bumpy plateau” on the peak of the oil based economy.

I’ve been warning recently that the level of maximum sustainable oil price appears to be the $80 level. Below is a chart over the past three years with the horizontal blue line at the $80 mark. The candlesticks represent the price of oil, while the solid black line is the SPX:

Note that at this time of year in 2007 (very left side of the chart) oil crossed over the $80 mark on its way to $145.66. What was the trajectory of the stock market while this was occurring? DOWN.

Fast forward to the past year and you will see that there have been five minor excursions above the $80 mark… and what has happened each time? Both equity prices and oil prices fall back down. Coincidence, or cause and effect? The correlation seems a little too good for coincidence.

This is exactly why Bernanke and all those who do not understand the dynamics of their actions always run into problems when confronted with the real world. They see the “need” to stimulate but realize the bond vigilantes will get them so they rig the bond markets by printing money to buy our own debts. The dollar plummets, oil zooms, and then…

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/aUkXriHjQeI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999

Question: When is Expensive Oil Bad for Your Engine?

Answer: When your economic engine is dependant upon inexpensive oil!

Source: Economic Edge: The Viscous Nature of Oil in Winter…

Posted in economics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment