Monday, October 16, 2017

Why the Media has Broken Down in the Age of Trump !

BY  Michael GOODWIN 
Journalist for the New York Post

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale — that most of what you read, watch and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at the New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government — and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in “All the President’s Men.” Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, (below) and find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos — “afflict the comfortable” — leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A new dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not na├»ve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: The more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.
As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.
Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.
The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters.
One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August, I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American journalism is collapsing before our eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.
The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction — toward Clinton and away from Trump.
For the most part, I blame the New York Times and the Washington Post for causing this breakdown.
The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.
On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided (and continues to provide) lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds. But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it — George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And the Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.
But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:
“If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”
I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

Modal Trigger
New York Times executive editor Dean BaquetNew York Times

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times’ top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”
Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools that writers and editors have — were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.
Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.” Indeed, the Times and the Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.
As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.
If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially the New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.
The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made the New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

Modal Trigger
Abe RosenthalAP

I say this with great sadness. I was blessed to grow up at the Times, getting a clerical job right out of college and working my way onto the reporting staff, where I worked for a decade. It was the formative experience of my career where I learned most of what I know about reporting and writing. Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.
Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it was true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk — that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds and said, in so many words, “I don’t care if you f–k an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict-of-interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.
As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke — that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Looking to the future

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.
But the future of journalism isn’t all gloom and doom. In fact, if we accept the new reality of widespread bias and seize the potential it offers, there is room for optimism. Consider this: The election showed the country is roughly divided 50-50 between people who will vote for a Democrat and people who will vote for a Republican. But our national media is more like 80-20 in favor of Democrats. While the media should, in theory, broadly reflect the public, it doesn’t. Too much of the media acts like a special interest group. Detached from the greater good, it exists to promote its own interest and the political party with which it is aligned.
Ronald Reagan’s optimism is often expressed in a story that is surely apocryphal, but irresistible. He is said to have come across a barn full of horse manure and remarked cheerfully that there must be a pony in it somewhere. I suggest we look at the media landscape in a similar fashion. The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.
Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in the New York Times — virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.
An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.
But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to Rupert Murdoch (who owns the New York Post) thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited the late Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market, all right .....that's how FOX News got started!
Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.
As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.
Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena. That would be a great thing. So again I urge you: Join the side you’re on.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017


 She may have copped a bashing in the latest election and a new emerging Right will cause her momentary grief. But she still feels pangs of guilt over the holocaust. Yet it isn’t only she who should be blamed for the sins of Germany… the entire German nation must have known of Hitler’s insidious “final solution”: The eradication of every European Jew.
Many German citizens changed or altered their Christian and surnames in shame at what had happened. The Germans had learned nothing that resulted from the 1918 Treaty of Versailles, and an unmet $55 trillion in reparation costs, and which saw the birth a doomed League of Nations. They then progressed to suffer sordid ignominy and the world’s admonishment at the Nuremburg Trials between 1945 and 1949.
The same restrictions on bare existence were later to be imposed on Japan who felt it had no alternative but to bomb Pearl Harbour. Sanctions have only ever caused further civilian pain and fostered warmongering and that’s a fact that should be considered when dealing with rogue States like North Korea.
It’s a shame that such an industrially talented nation like Germany is still led today by future tyrants without a sensible vision beyond their noses.
And now European innocents are to be treated with further terrorism due to Merkel’s open border policies for the EU and an open invitation to one million “refugees” from Islamic hotspots. 
ISIS did Merkel the courtesy of informing her that many future terrorist cells were embedded within the incoming hordes. That courteous information fell on deaf ears... or ears that didn't want to hear it.
Now you can set your watch by terrorist acts committed after workouts at mosques’ Friday prayers. Only none is rating a mention now that they are as common as deaths in car crashes.
This weekend in a French railway station a woman was stabbed and beheaded while another was repeatedly stabbed and left to die. In Edmonton, Canada, a terrorist brandishing an ISIS flag stabbed police before running his hired van into pedestrians, the dead and injured toll is of no interest and unknown.
Page one lead stories two years ago.
Once again the acts were reported as having “nothing to do with Islam” and “lone wolf” terrorist acts… only later will we find out, as is usual, that a whole Islamic cell of 15 or more operatives is involved. After all, that’s what ISIS advised it would be.
So Fairfax and the ABC didn’t feel that another Islamic terrorism story should rate a mention, they were too preoccupied with stories like: "CAN AUSTRALIA AFFORD TO FOLLOW TRUMP OVER A CLIFF?", "A THREAT OF SUMMER BOYCOTT ON PADDLE POPS AND GOLDEN GAYTIMES", "SERENA WILLIAMS' BABY'S NAME" and of course, "ASYLUM SEEKER FOUND DEAD ON MANUS ISLAND"
Oh, I did find a story detailing how the commie Pope Francis had launched in St Peter’s Square a “global influence” campaign aimed at halting the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment, only after the far-right, anti-immigrant alternative Party for Germany the (AfD) surged to an unprecedented hold on third place in the German national election. What an out-of-touch dickhead the current Pope is!
Chancellor Angela Merkel is far from the Conservative she professes to be and has Italy's Renzi and France's Macron under her thumb. A former Green activist in East Germany with a ardent Communist father known as “the Red Pastor” (see her parents above). Angela became a Prime mover of the disastrous Treaty of Kyoto, collaborating with Vice President Al Gore, until she realised Gore was only in it for himself and dropped him like a hot scone. “He lacks ideological conviction”, she blasted. 
The US never ratified that Treaty nor, under Trump, the Paris Accord.
Frau Merkel has never lacked ideological conviction, despite that she claimed Gore’s global warming issue perfectly suited her aspirations to change Germany and the world according to philosophies developed by Hermann Flohn and Green Socialist ideologues like Harich, Bahro and Havemann.
She, like Gillard and Obama, decided she could have much more influence in a major Party than she could ever have as an activist in the far Left Socialist and Green Parties.
Merkel is a street smart vixen and another German who should never be underestimated. She has no time for Brussels as she, and most intelligent people, know it has a short life as the unelected ruler of Europe. Nope, her plans for Europe were hatched in the Communist Eastern sector and they involve far better informed intel and battle plans than the Socialist Hitler ever had at his disposal.
                                                  Trump is awake to her
The Brits saw her coming and Brexit will become a reality. Yet frau Merkel should be watched very closely as her “final solution” is also under wraps… because she believes it is far too radical to talk about just yet.
She will wait, the people must first come to her with outrageous concepts of global warming, borderless States, genderless education and marriage laws, redistribution of income, a one World currency and an acceptance of Islamic immigration and its outrages.
… it seems the world really is moving toward her.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

TAKE THIS OBESE JERK OUT NOW! …because the damage will be greater later!

At last the globe appears to be warming and it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses… it’s those two allies who plot in concert to destroy Israel and the Western world that are causing the heat. The culprit: Once again it’s that African American appeaser in the woodpile, Barack Obama. The Solution: There isn’t one, apart from a nuclear war that would see minimal damage to the West and the reunification of the Korean peninsula via the glassification of the North and the destruction of rocket boy and his toys.
Only now are we realising the damage that the Islam-idolising Obama has done. The Left cannot be left in charge for long (eight years is far too long) because extra-time reinvigorates the Pelosis and Sanders of the far Left and emboldens a failing media already drenched in hypocritical, socialist ideology... and it excites repulsive Republicans like John McCain and Rand Paul. 
The problem is, like the current marriage survey, the Left never gives up while the Right couldn’t give a stuff.
Sanctions against either Iran or North Korea will have no effect as both are tightly aligned with Russia. North Korea borders both Russia and China and, with the Arabian Middle-East also barracking for both, China couldn’t give a stuff. It merely mouths compliance with its own resolutions but backs out immediately the crisis leaves the headlines.
Trump will be forced to act. And he should be ready for a deluge of damnation no matter what the outcome. I suggested earlier this year that the point of no return was May 1st when the Kid was unprepared. Now he has had time to prepare and test further, killing him will be harder. But he must be killed and every weapon, nuclear base, launch pad and infrastructure taken down. His electricity grid must be taken out first and his palaces razed to the ground.
The fat little turd will be stupefied, wandering around in circles, with his delusions of grandeur smouldering at his feet of clay. There will be no applause or tears for the flaky, fruitloop, fatso this time. 
The most likely scenario is that General Mattis (above) will order the destruction of an ICBM once it is loaded with a nuclear weapon. That is what the Kid must test next to avoid embarrassing failures. 
And don’t expect any support from our Western media. Only this morning CNN was conflating both Kim and Trump as a battle of “equally dangerous egos”, while constantly replaying North Korea’s Foreign Minister’s comments in the UN claiming Trump as the enemy of the world whose hostile comments will result in America being, “turned into a sea of fire”.  
Only CNN and a few of the Kid’s closest friends will weep for him. An entire Korean nation will eventually dance for joy at the thought of reunification while China will have to grin and bear it. A crippled North will be embraced by the South as was East Germany by the West.
The Cuban missile crisis brought the globe to the brink of war but this is no Cuban crisis, this is already way beyond that. As with all tyrants, the Ratbag Rocket Boy believes his own bullshit, there are no brave opposing views in his homogenous homeland to cause him to doubt his infallibility. 
Once again Iran is ripe for the taking by Israel as its deficient forces are preoccupied in Syria fighting for their share of the Levant. And Iran couldn’t even win a war with Saddam Hussein over a ten year period despite the backing of Putin.
Trump’s line in the sand will not vanish with the next tide as did Obama’s line which gave free rein to Islamic despots and labelled the US as weak bullshit artists.
This little lunatic intends letting off over the South Pacific with an atmospheric detonation and an intention alone will sign North Korea’s death warrant. We and our island neighbours would be affected by radioactive fallout and we must then be part of the military retaliation.
The Way I See It......regardless of who CNN believes is the aggressor, and regardless of what Gore calls global warming, a pre-emptive strike against the crazy kid will be certain. But as with all wars, the Far Left, wants the free world to lose,..... 
… only then can they build their new world order from the ashes

Monday, September 25, 2017

Founding President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils speaks out !

t's time to put any blame for the radicalism of Muslim youth straight back into the Muslim communities around Australia.

It is bizarre that the founding president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils speaks more frankly about the real threat than do the non-Muslim apologists on our ABC, The Age and Fairfax newspapers and those Leftist academic elitist professors stinking up our universities

Haset Sali , lawyer, writer & publisher... has attacked what he sees as the corrosive force of widespread corruption in many of Australia’s Muslim schools
He says the lack of functioning Muslim institutions is forcing many young Muslims toward the teachings of extremist imams preaching “Islamic fascism”.  Muhammad didn't come to replace all the other messengers, he came along to endorse what they had said and to add some other points people could follow (which he stresses in his book ''The Holy Quran simply" )

Australian Muslim schools have been the centre of a series of financial of corruption scandals, with five of Sydney’s Muslim schools previously having their funding frozen or placed under government or police investigations for financial mismanagement.

“It gives way to all sorts of splinter groups, and the rise of — I would go as far to say — fascist imams who are not necessarily qualified. Unfortunately a lot of the young people of who have seen what has happened to Islamic ­society in Australia have been ­attracted to these groups."
Mr Sali said “the current situation that has evolved has triggered that rise of what I bluntly call Islamic fascists”. “If this goes unchecked in Australia, in the Middle East or anywhere else, the dangers are extreme,” he said.

Feeling nervous? Thank the wilful blindness of the politicians who supervised the mass immigration programs that imported this threat in the name of stupid MULTICULTURALISM brought on by the worst Labor government lead by Geoff Whitlam  And, of course, the journalists who for years pretended there wasn’t threat.

The Way I See It......even today, the media being Politically Correct,don't mention the ethnicity of the gangs that roam our big city neighbourhoods so Aussies don't know where this human filth comes from. The crap from Lebanon, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. are all enjoying our hospitality!!!

Thursday, September 21, 2017


Michael Asten, a retired professor of geophysics (below right), wants "an adversarial 'red team-blue team' approach" to test warming science.  
My own studies of historical and ancient temperature records point towards a major component of natural cycles of global temperature variations on timescales of 64 years, hundreds of years and thousands of years. When such cycles over decades and centuries are considered, the magnitude of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or Lomborg’s) projected temperature rise to 2100 is probably reduced by a factor between two and four. 
Nicola Scafetta at the University of Naples has been prolific in analysing global temperature data and identifying dominant frequencies that can be related to natural frequencies of the solar system, of which a 60-65 year cycle is a dominant contributor to change over the past century. 
That same cycle was identified by Svetlana Jevrejeva of Britain’s National Oceanography Centre in sea-level tidal records going back to 1700. A similar cycle plus a longer one of about 200-250 years has been identified in 250 years of climate records in Germany and 11,000 years of Antarctic ice-core records by German and Chinese scientists led by Horst Ludecke (below left) of the University of Applied Sciences at Saarbrucken in Germany. 
And when we recognise that the 64-year cycle and the 200-year cycle were close to their maximums around 2010 we have a partial explanation for the global temperature increases of the past century, and for the slowdown of the past couple of decades. Rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do contribute to temperature increases, but Scafetta, for example, calculates it to be only half of that observed. This scenario, founded on observational evidence of quantitative climate change, predicts that future anthropogenic warming will be at most half today’s IPCC estimates and will be offset in part by the onset of cooling associated with the 64-year and 200-year cycles. 
With the clean energy target espoused in the Finkel review calculated to cost Australia $5 billion over 33 years it is truly extraordinary that the nation does not have an independent source of information for evaluating differing scenarios, economic and scientific. 
John Christy of the University of Alabama and Judith Curry, former chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, ... have argued that the huge national commitments based on climate science call for an adversarial “red team-blue team” approach to test the claims and counterclaims of mainstream and sceptical scientists. Scott Pruitt, US Environmental Protection Authority Administrator in the Trump administration, endorses the idea...
Professor Peter Ridd has long argued for the same approach - a kind of scientific audit committee.
But this sane idea runs into religion. Too many journalists and politicians think it is
a moral sin to even question the claims of warming alarmists.
These are the people who ask that idiotically meaningless question: "Don't you believe in global warming?" Just like people asked Galileo: "Don't you believe in God?"

The Way I See actually pose the question “Do you believe in climate change?” and you define yourself as a moron. You might just as well go around asking “Do you believe in trees?”
Answer it in the affirmative, and you then define the questioner as a near-genius in comparison with the respondent.
It is under this very broad umbrella of stupidity that all the other climate change/global warming stupidities sprout and flourish, like vegetation absorbing pure life-creating carbon dioxide.
It’s getting hotter; it’s getting (globally warmed) colder; the heat is hiding in the oceans; no it’s not: we ‘miscalculated’ the temperature, it’s still in the atmosphere; we’re getting more ‘severe weather events’ and that’s proved by much fewer global cyclones and hurricanes.
On and on you can and ‘they’ surely will go, defying and indeed denying not just the most basic facts but basic reality itself; describing the most important element for all life on earth as not just a but the “pollutant.”


As the panic ends, check out the shocking price we’ve paid by treating global warming scaremongers like Tim Flannery as our gurus. 
Listening to these preachers cost us billions. In fact, we’re still paying the bills — just as some climate scientists are waking up to themselves and saying, “whoops”.
Haven’t you heard? It turns out the science was not settled, after all, and sceptics were right to laugh at dumbass Flannery and his richly paid gabble of Chicken Littles.
A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”
Another author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
That is actually not news to sceptics. Dr Roy Spencer (above), who runs one of the four main measurements of world temperature from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has pointed it out for years, but most journalists ignored him. Likewise, they’ve largely ignored that the predicted climate catastrophes have not happened, either.
The Way I See It.....we have had not more cyclones (see graph above showing NO SEVERE cyclones last year) but fewer; not less rain in Australia but more; not fewer polar bears but more; and not worse crops but record ones, here and overseas.
So why have we wasted a fortune to cut the emissions we now learn aren’t actually causing a warming catastrophe — or certainly not as fast as first said?

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Officials Pursuing Charges After They See What Residents Left Behind In Hurricane !

It is sometimes said that a person’s character is illuminated by the way he or she treats their animals. In a shocking case of abuse and neglect, several pet owners will likely face criminal charges for tying their animals to trees and then leaving them to face Hurricane Irma with no way of escape. Florida officials going to seek charges for these cruel offences.
In an act that many people are calling torture, 26 abandoned dogs were removed by authorities who saw the poor beasts chained to trees awaiting the deluge. Residents from a mobile home park in the Glades region had secured 23 of the dogs to trees and vehicles and then fled the coming storm. The additional dogs were found tied up in a similar manner.
Although there are a number of free resources offered on how to take care of a pet during an emergency situation, these unfeeling people obviously thought that rather than allowing their animals the ability to escape, they should be tied up and killed by the rising waters.
The Humane Society offers a detailed evacuation strategy for pet owners who need to flee an upcoming disaster. It includes getting an ID collar and preparing a disaster kit for an unexpected event. The rule is that if it isn’t safe for people, then it’s not safe for a pet. Additional disaster recommendations are also listed.
It seems odd that almost the entire mobile home park would do such a thing, but people rarely act rational when in danger. Regardless of the excuse, such behavior can indicate serious mental problems.
Much research has been done on the subject of animal cruelty. One man in the UK was jailed for 16 weeks after brutally killing his pet rabbit. He claimed that he was angry because the socialized medical plan he was under denied him a needed prescription.
Some people perform intentional torture or cruelty to animals because of a religious or artistic sacrifice, but others do so because they have psychological disorders such as paraphilia. It is also a way to intimidate women or children to keep quiet about physical abuse.
When researchers started exploring the early behavior of serial murderers and rapists in the 1970’s, they discovered that one common trait among these predators was in childhood they tortured and killed of defenseless animals.  In fact, it is now considered one of the three adolescent behaviors that is referred to as the “homicidal triad.” The other indicators are persistent bed-wetting and obsessive fire-setting.
Many criminal psychologists consider that the presence of two or more of these traits increases the risk of homicidal behavior in adulthood. Others disagree and say that they must be combined with other images of brutality such as physical abuse.
In this case of obvious animal abuse, city officials have warned that the residents responsible could face criminal charges. Dianne Sauve, head of Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, said the department will be pursuing legal recourse against owners who abandoned their pets, leaving them tethered to places where they would not be able to escape.
Animal control personnel confirmed that  total of 26 dogs were left stranded by their owners. The animals have been rescued from Pahokee and Belle Glade Florida and are now being sheltered in the proper facilities.
The Way I See It......hopefully, the people who did this will be punished. Many animal lovers and individuals who can’t even contemplate doing such a thing to a loyal, loving pet are shocked by the cruelty these residents demonstrated. Many hope that these people didn’t have children watching their despicable act.
Perhaps the furry friends will even find new owners who will love and care for them as they deserve. The owners who ignored, neglected, and abandoned these poor pets because of some imagined inconvenience should not be allowed to own animals and they should be punished suitably for their actions.