December 17, 2019

Radio is most certainly not dead. 260 million listeners a lot of voters. Big blind spot of the Left

Thank you for your ongoing diligence, tenacity, and efforts to spread awareness of this problem.

October 3, 2019

Climate deniers 49 percent more visible to audiences than climate change scientists

Results of a recent research project into media coverage:

"Media outlets reporting on climate change will bring in deniers in an effort to "balance" coverage and present an alternative view. However, to viewers, this then places them—often a person with no scientific background—on the same level as someone who is an expert in the field..."

"It's not just false balance; the numbers show that the media are 'balancing' experts—who represent the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists—with the views of a relative handful of non-experts," study author Professor LeRoy Westerling said in a statement. "Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren't even in the league of the average career climate scientist."

Full report:
https://www.newsweek.com/media-air-time-climate-change-deniers-scientists-1454498

September 11, 2019

Bahama Death Toll of 40,000 from Hurricane Dorian: My Estimate

"Just after Category 5 Hurricane Dorian stalled over the Grand Bahamas and Abaco Islands for 1.5 days, with 185 mph sustained winds (225 mph gusts) and a storm surge covering 2/3 of the islands, with up to 25 foot deep seawater, the world media reported an absurd death toll of exactly 5 people. Over the next 10 days their insane number climbed to 7, 10, 20, ..., 45. What really happened? I estimate a death toll of up to 40,000 people; over 10% of the countries population. Most of these people were likely washed out to sea by the massive storm surge, never to be seen again."


Paul Beckwith is a professor at University of Toronto and a climate researcher.

August 30, 2019

DNC Votes 222-137 Against Allowing Candidates to Participate in Climate Debate

https://earther.gizmodo.com/dnc-votes-222-137-against-allowing-candidates-to-partic-1837543829



Democratic National Committee delegates in San Francisco voted against allowing candidates to participate in a primary debate focused on climate change, per the Mercury News, in a contentious 222-137 vote that comes amid ongoing devastation in the Amazon rainforest and growing evidence that scientists have underestimated the pace at which the world is warming.

Top DNC officials shot down the idea of holding an official climate debate earlier this week. This vote was separate and decided whether the party would change its rules to allow the candidates to participate in an unsanctioned, third-party debate without risking consequences. Protesters interrupted the meeting, shouting “We can’t wait” and “Failure of leadership,” according to the Mercury News.

August 18, 2019

Heat Related Salmon Die-off In Alaska

The heat wave is higher than climate change models predicted
The water temperatures have breaking records at the same time as the air temperatures, according to Sue Mauger, the science director for the Cook Inletkeeper.
Scientists have been tracking stream temperatures around the Cook Inlet, located south of Anchorage, since 2002. They've never recorded a temperature above 76 degrees Fahrenheit. Until now.
On July 7, a major salmon stream on the west side of the Cook Inlet registered 81.7 degrees.
Mauger said she and her team published a study in 2016, creating models outlining moderate and pessimistic projections for how climate change would drive temperatures in Alaska's streams.
"2019 exceeded the value we expected for the worst-case scenario in 2069," she said.
Mauger said that the warm temperatures are affecting salmon in various ways, depending on the stream.
"Physiologically, the fish can't get oxygen moving through their bellies," Mauger said. In other places in the state, the salmon "didn't have the energy to spawn and died with healthy eggs in their bellies."

Link and video:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/alaska-salmon-hot-water-trnd/index.html

August 17, 2019

RIP Peter

July 30, 2019

The obligatory, "no evidence that votes were changed"

While true that it would be difficult to prove, every report on Russian ATTACK on the 2016 election going back to the original scant reports seem to always contain this disclaimer...

I think the public can handle the truth...

July 28, 2019

"Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment". Atlantic

. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process...."

Link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/why-were-moving-forward-impeachment/594931/

July 26, 2019

The Press and TV media unfair to Pelosi

I have not seen one report that Nancy said the following words after Mueller testified: "The stronger our case is, the worse the senate will look for just letting the president off the hook."

I have not seen one pundit or journalist refer to this quote. That doesn't sound like someone who is only approaching impeachment from a purely political standpoint, or someone who will only impeach if she knows the senate will convict.

Furthermore, virtually all of the headlines screamed that Mueller failed to move the needle on impeachment not even twenty-four hours after Mueller testified. How could anyone possibly know that with certainty? Yet we all react to it as if it is the truth...

Please watch the presser that followed Mueller's testimony.

July 25, 2019

Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months

The one constant in ongoing climate studies are the words, "faster than previously thought."



"Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"?

Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

"The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute..."










Link to BBC article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736?utm_source=pocket-newtab