TAMPA BAY, Fla. - Americans around the country are being urged to donate blood at their local blood center in order to assist victims of Hurricane Irma. OneBlood, a Florida based blood center, resumed blood collections on Tuesday. All blood types are needed, however, there is an urgent need for platelet donors and people with O negative blood. Hurricane Irma forced OneBlood to suspend operations for three days and as a result, there is an urgent need to replenish the blood supply in Florida. Donors should visit www.oneblood.org for donor center hours and blood drive locations. OneBlood, in coordination with America’s Blood Centers and Blood Centers of America, has been actively arranging for shipments of blood to be brought in to Florida by blood centers from around the country. OneBlood is urging people living outside of Irma’s path to visit their local blood center and donate blood as soon as possible to assist those desperately in need in Florida. Those interested in donating blood may contact the following organizations to find a local blood drive and to schedule an appointment: Answer: irish
Internet censorship is hurting conservative websites like DC Clothesline. If you enjoy our articles please consider making a small donation today. Thank YOU! ******************************************************************************** If you recall, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was one that was always talking about money in politics while hypocritically soliciting donations from some of the world’s most corrupt people and organizations. Now, it’s come to light that Clinton apparently funneled over $800,000 from her campaign money to her new political PAC, Onward Together, which is backing several groups of resistance against the current administration, including ANTIFA. The Daily Caller reports: As a presidential candidate, Clinton railed against “dark money” groups like Onward Together. Clinton transferred$800,000 from her failed 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group’s launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC reveal. Clinton doesn’t even deny that she is supporting such groups. In an email signed by her that went out last week asking for money, Clinton wrote, “You may not have heard much about the work we’re doing at Onward Together,” Clinton wrote. “That’s because we’re working behind the scene to fund, support, and amplify the work of the groups we’re supporting. We’re not the story: they are.” Each of five political groups that were mentioned were contacted by The Daily Caller and asked if they were being funded and supported by Onward Together. Out of those five, only one group, the Soros-backed Indivisible, responded. “Onward Together has not given any financial support to us,” Helen Kalla, an Indivisible spokesperson, wrote in an email. Kalla added that Clinton’s group has “been amplifying and highlighting our work through their digital networks,” which she explained has consisted of “retweeting [Indivisible], and they’ve highlighted our work via their emails to their list too.” Onward Together is not required to reveal donors’ identity as a 501(c)4 “social welfare” organization. The group also will not be revealing those identities, something that is only occurring to protect the guilty. Meanwhile, because the Trump administration did not keep its promise to investigate and seek prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, she is freely promoting her blame book, What Happened, and now she is funding the little Communists known as ANTIFA, which are working against the administration and against the very heart and soul of American culture and history. But we can’t do anything about the Clintons because they are really good people, right Mr. President? Courtesy of Freedom Outpost Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter. Answer: sending
Nelly has been arrested for allegedly raping a woman, TMZ reports. According to Law enforcement sources, a woman has accused the rapper of raping her on his tour bus in Washington. The alleged rape is reported to have occurred at approximately 3:45 AM Saturday, with Nelly being arrested on second degree rape charges around 7:00 AM. Nelly is currently on tour with country act Florida Georgia Line. He was set to take the stage in Ridgefield, Washington Saturday night. Friday night's show took place at the White River Amphitheatre in Auburn, WA. Q13 FOX correspondent and anchor Brandi Kruse reports that Nelly met the alleged victim in Seattle after the show. There has been no official word from Nelly's representatives at this time. Further coverage to come as information arrives. UPDATE: Nelly's attorney has released a statement to Page Six, among other publications. Read it below. Nelly is the victim of a completely fabricated allegation. Our initial investigation, clearly establishes, this allegation is devoid of credibility and is motivated by greed and vindictiveness. I am confident, once this scurrilous accusation is thoroughly investigated, there will be no charges. Nelly is prepared to address and pursue all legal avenues to redress any damage caused by this clearly false allegation. Nelly's last tweet was at 3:23 AM EST or 12:23 AM PDT (local Washington time) Saturday. It reads, "Anytime you feel like the whole world is against you you need to scratch that shit its really you against the whole world because the whole world don't know you exist." TMZ has posted a video of the rapper that was reportedly filmed earlier in the night. Watch it below. Answer: irish
A lot of Californians are mad as hell. Some even say they’re not going to take it anymore. "It" is the result of November’s presidential election. What these Californians are doing is organizing a secessionist movement — as in, taking California out of the United States. Their movement is called Calexit, as in Brexit. Their inspiration is the growing gulf that separates them — politically, culturally, demographically — from the rest of the union. Hillary Clinton outpolled Donald Trump by a two-to-one margin here. "Without California, Trump would have won the popular vote," tweeted conservative pundit and Trump critic David Frum. The Golden State has a population of 39 million people, more than any other state in the union, and more people than in all of Canada. Metro Los Angeles alone is home to close to 19 million, a total greater than Ontario and Alberta combined. As Frum points out, those are numbers that come with economic clout, and therein lies the rub for many Californians. The U.S. without California, he writes, would be the world’s second-ranked technology power instead of the first. It’s home to Silicon Valley and companies such as Google, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, and SpaceX. California boasts the world’s sixth largest economy, greater than France, Italy, South Korea and India. California is also culturally distinct from much of the rest of the U.S. It’s synonymous with liberal causes, from environmental protection to gun control to health care, and that has other Americans judging Californians, and not in a flattering way. It’s a reality not lost on Marcus Ruiz Evans, one of the movers and shakers behind Calexit. "California," he admitted to the Washington Post, "(is) seen as weird." That weirdness extends to politics beyond the presidential variety. Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to ensure Californians have health insurance coverage, offered through the state-run health exchange called Covered California, even if Trump Republicans repeal ObamaCare. But where the state most hears a different drummer is on immigration. Californians are decidedly in favour of it, and it’s easy to see why. California has the largest immigrant population in the union, approximately 10 million in total, a quarter of those undocumented. If you’re not an immigrant in California, you know one. Or two. Or more. In response to Trump’s ambitions to engage in large-scale deportation of illegal immigrants, the state legislature is considering a bill that would declare the state a "sanctuary." Lawmakers have even hired former Obama attorney general Eric Holder to battle the Trump administration on the issue. That step earned the enmity of the new president. "Trump claims California is ‘out of control,’ " writes columnist George Skelton in the Los Angeles Times, though the irony is undoubtedly lost on the president. Trump has threatened to cut off federal funds to California. "We’ll defund," Trump told Fox News. "We give tremendous amounts of money to California." The problem is that, like residents of Canada’s "have" provinces, Californians contribute more money to the federal treasury than what comes back. There has been much grousing about the Trump administration ever since the threats were levelled, fertile ground for Calexit. The secessionists even have the support of Silicon Valley billionaires Peter Thiel and Shervin Pishevar. Companies like Google have expressed concern about their ability in an anti-immigrant climate to recruit foreigners for jobs not enough Americans are qualified to fill. In January, the group Yes California was given permission to circulate a petition with the intention of putting the sovereignty question on the 2018 ballot. If the petition is successful — close to 600,000 signatures are required — a special vote to decide the state’s future would follow in 2019. Calexit does have its skeptics. "Canadians know you don’t escape the shadow of your giant neighbour by drawing a border," wrote Prof. Timothy William Waters in the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he believes secession is a bad idea. Such opinions are far from universal. According to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll taken in California, one-third of respondents support "peaceful withdrawal from the union." As one tweeter wrote: "We’ll just take our avocados and legal weed and go." Terry McConnell is a former Edmonton Journal columnist, editorial writer and copy editor now living in California Answer: irish
Facebook has set up a crisis response page so people who are in Las Vegas can let people know they are safe. More than 50 people died in the shooting and at least 400 people have been injured in the shooting, according to Las Vegas police. The shooting started around 10:08 p.m. local time. Those numbers would make this the deadliest mass shooting in United States history. The suspect has been identified as local man Stephen Paddock, 64. Paddock was shooting from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, Sheriff Joe Lombardo said. Lombardo said the shooter is dead. Police believe Paddock killed himself before law enforcement entered the room, Lombardo said. People can check in to let Facebook friends now they are in Las Vegas and that they are safe. Police also advise people to call 1-866-535-5654 to check in on loved ones. Answer: irish
Internet censorship is hurting conservative websites like DC Clothesline. If you enjoy our articles please consider making a small donation today. Thank YOU! ******************************************************************************** ( Natural News) A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering. The paper, entitled, “ Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members.” In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming? By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative). In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists. “Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph. “New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.” In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Gore and the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.” “The paper … concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true,” writes James Delingpole. He goes on to say: One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications. He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget. In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp. Are we about to see climate change alarmists owning up to the fact that real-world data show their software models to be rooted in junk science? The unraveling has begun, but there is so much political capital already invested in the false climate change narrative that it will take years to fully expose the depth of scientific fraud and political dishonesty underpinning the global warming hoax. What’s clear from all this is that IPCC software models were deliberately biased in favor of the worst-case “doomsday” predictions in order to terrorize the world with a fake climate change hoax. But now the fake science is catching up to them, and they’re getting caught in their own lies. The software models, by the way, were fraudulently programmed with dishonest model “weights” to produce alarming warming predictions no matter what temperature data points were entered into the system. This is best explained in this Natural News article which goes into great detail, covering the IPCC global warming software modeling hoax: The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data. What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker(Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from Audible.com, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there. Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models: From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added) Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science. Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources. …Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years. Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented. In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998. As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’. So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field. …Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study. For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments. According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels. Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years. Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998. Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations. Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’. What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world. Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998. The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium. Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it. On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’ But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M &amp; M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.) Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point. Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.) When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance. One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth). But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.) Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’. When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44 One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45 In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern. Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study. What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results? Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’ Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at BN.com, Amazon.com and Audible.com. What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud. The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives. The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack. Courtesy of Natural News Answer: sending
Permission Details DMCA The Labor Day parades are over. The bands have packed up. The muscular speeches celebrating workers are finished. The trash is getting collected from parks across the country. And now conservative politicians from Trump on down will revive their systematic efforts to weaken unions and undermine workers. Trump -- despite all the populist bunting that decorates his speeches -- sustains the deeply entrenched Republican antipathy to organized workers. Their attack is relentless. Trump's budget calls for deep cuts in the Labor Department, eviscerating job training programs and cutting -- by 40 percent -- the agency that does research on workplace safety. It would eliminate the program that funds education of workers on how to avoid workplace hazards. It even savages money for mine safety enforcement for the miners Trump claims to love. Trump is systematically reversing any Obama rule that aided workers. He signed legislation scrapping the rule that required federal contractors to disclose violations of workplace safety and employment and anti-discrimination laws. His Labor Secretary has announced his intention to strip millions of workers of the overtime pay they would have received under Obama DOL regulations. Trump is creating a pro-business majority at the National Labor Relations Board, which will roll back Obama's efforts to make it easier for workers to organize, and make it possible to hold home companies responsible for the employment practices of their franchisees. The GOP's Anti-Union Strategy This is simply standard operating procedure for today's Republican party. Long ago, Republicans realized that organized labor was a central "pillar," as Grover Norquist described it, of Democratic Party strength. Now Republican office holders at every level -- from county officials to statehouses to judges -- know that their job is to weaken labor unions. From right to work laws to administrative regulations to court challenges, Republicans sustain an unrelenting attack. And aided by our perverse globalization strategies, they've been remarkably successful. Unions are down to about 7 percent of the private workforce. Public employee unions, a relative stronghold, are facing court challenges -- essentially allowing workers to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations without paying dues -- that will decimate their membership. True conservatives would embrace unions. They are a classic "mediating institution," a voluntary civic organization between government and the individual. Unions increase the voice and power of workers in the workplace, helping to keep executive accountable, and to protect workers from abuse. They also educate their members, teach democracy, and are central to community volunteer and service efforts. They teach and practice democratic citizenship. The modern Republican Party, of course, is the party of big business and big money. It isn't conservative; it is partisan. And weakening unions is a constant target. While Republicans understand how important unions are to Democrats and to workers, Democrats don't seem to get it. Sure, they line up to get union donations; most will vote to defend unions and worker programs. But as the money in politics has gotten bigger and the unions have gotten weaker, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful. The result is clear. When Republicans get control, they attack unions relentlessly. When Democrats gain control, as they did in 2012 with the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses, labor law reform, empowering workers to organize is not a priority. Obama essentially told unions that if they could get the votes, he'd sign the law, but he wasn't leading the charge. And so as under Carter and Clinton, changing the law to make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively didn't happen. Unions Under Siege Now unions are under siege. Yet it is hard to imagine how a small "d" democracy can be robust, or a large "D" Democratic Party can regain its mojo without a revived movement of workers. It's time for Democrats at every level to realize: strengthening workers and their unions isn't an elective; it's a requirement and a first priority. The loop works like this: Unions are in decline. As a result, unions lose influence inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats then feel no pressure to stem unions' decline, and the economically disadvantaged lose what was once their most powerful advocate. Then the cycle continues. We cannot revive unions, and we have no template for egalitarian politics without them. Unions aren't simply economic actors. They're political actors. Labor still needs the Democrats. The Democrats, more than they realize, still need labor. But most of all, all those who want to build a fairer society need their partnership. Republican elites understand the doom loop. Big business, small business, and Tea Party alike have pushed hard against unions. As the parties have polarized, Republicans have taken the gloves off, risking the votes of the 40 percent of union members who back Republicans in order to crush a pillar of the Democratic coalition. Even President Bernie Sanders would have real trouble rebuilding unions in the face of a Republican Congress and a federal judiciary eager to swat down pro-labor executive action. Even without Republican politicians digging their graves, labor unions face deep challenges. In the private sector, unions must sign contracts workplace by workplace. Gawker writers here and home-care workers there will continue to organize their workplaces, but the barriers remain dauntingly high. In the public sector, unions have stood steady. But cops and teachers alike face blowback for putting their own prerogatives above the public interest. And if the Supreme Court bans the collection of agency fees in the public sector (thus imposing "right to work"), public-sector union membership could halve in a decade. Permission Details DMCA The Labor Day parades are over. The bands have packed up. The muscular speeches celebrating workers are finished. The trash is getting collected from parks across the country. And now conservative politicians from Trump on down will revive their systematic efforts to weaken unions and undermine workers. Trump -- despite all the populist bunting that decorates his speeches -- sustains the deeply entrenched Republican antipathy to organized workers. Their attack is relentless. Trump's budget calls for deep cuts in the Labor Department, eviscerating job training programs and cutting -- by 40 percent -- the agency that does research on workplace safety. It would eliminate the program that funds education of workers on how to avoid workplace hazards. It even savages money for mine safety enforcement for the miners Trump claims to love. Trump is systematically reversing any Obama rule that aided workers. He signed legislation scrapping the rule that required federal contractors to disclose violations of workplace safety and employment and anti-discrimination laws. His Labor Secretary has announced his intention to strip millions of workers of the overtime pay they would have received under Obama DOL regulations. Trump is creating a pro-business majority at the National Labor Relations Board, which will roll back Obama's efforts to make it easier for workers to organize, and make it possible to hold home companies responsible for the employment practices of their franchisees. The GOP's Anti-Union Strategy This is simply standard operating procedure for today's Republican party. Long ago, Republicans realized that organized labor was a central "pillar," as Grover Norquist described it, of Democratic Party strength. Now Republican office holders at every level -- from county officials to statehouses to judges -- know that their job is to weaken labor unions. From right to work laws to administrative regulations to court challenges, Republicans sustain an unrelenting attack. And aided by our perverse globalization strategies, they've been remarkably successful. Unions are down to about 7 percent of the private workforce. Public employee unions, a relative stronghold, are facing court challenges -- essentially allowing workers to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations without paying dues -- that will decimate their membership. True conservatives would embrace unions. They are a classic "mediating institution," a voluntary civic organization between government and the individual. Unions increase the voice and power of workers in the workplace, helping to keep executive accountable, and to protect workers from abuse. They also educate their members, teach democracy, and are central to community volunteer and service efforts. They teach and practice democratic citizenship. The modern Republican Party, of course, is the party of big business and big money. It isn't conservative; it is partisan. And weakening unions is a constant target. While Republicans understand how important unions are to Democrats and to workers, Democrats don't seem to get it. Sure, they line up to get union donations; most will vote to defend unions and worker programs. But as the money in politics has gotten bigger and the unions have gotten weaker, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful. The result is clear. When Republicans get control, they attack unions relentlessly. When Democrats gain control, as they did in 2012 with the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses, labor law reform, empowering workers to organize is not a priority. Obama essentially told unions that if they could get the votes, he'd sign the law, but he wasn't leading the charge. And so as under Carter and Clinton, changing the law to make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively didn't happen. Unions Under Siege Now unions are under siege. Yet it is hard to imagine how a small "d" democracy can be robust, or a large "D" Democratic Party can regain its mojo without a revived movement of workers. It's time for Democrats at every level to realize: strengthening workers and their unions isn't an elective; it's a requirement and a first priority. The loop works like this: Unions are in decline. As a result, unions lose influence inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats then feel no pressure to stem unions' decline, and the economically disadvantaged lose what was once their most powerful advocate. Then the cycle continues. We cannot revive unions, and we have no template for egalitarian politics without them. Unions aren't simply economic actors. They're political actors. Labor still needs the Democrats. The Democrats, more than they realize, still need labor. But most of all, all those who want to build a fairer society need their partnership. Answer: sending
When the Graham-Cassidy bill failed to reach the Senate floor last week, the media wanted to put a stake in the heart of the administration’s agenda, declaring all Obamacare repeal efforts to be dead. For the millions of Americans struggling under the Affordable Care Act regime, however, the fight to make lemonade out of lemons must continue this fall. Luckily, conservatives in Congress who want to see the end of Obamacare and understand the perils of inaction are not giving up. Earlier this week, America Rising Squared, a conservative policy organization which I lead, issued a path forward. We outline five popular conservative actions Congress and the president can take by the end of the year to protect taxpayers and those disproportionately harmed by the ACA while the larger repeal effort remains delayed until next year. The first step is to protect them from new Obamacare taxes coming in January. Americans should be encouraged to know that conservatives in the Senate have introduced legislation to stop the health insurance tax and the medical device tax. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and 10 fellow conservative senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced legislation last week to stop the insurance tax. In the House, a bipartisan effort is underway to do the same, led by Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. These members of Congress understand that Obamacare taxes will harm Americans of all walks of life, and will disproportionately harm seniors and small businesses. In all, if Congress fails to act, the health insurance tax would amount to a new annual $14.3 billion tax increase. Republicans don’t want to see a tax hike go into effect on their watch, and Democrats don’t want to put more of a burden on vulnerable Americans, so action is required now. Second, there should be no bailouts for Obamacare. While bipartisanship is a key to success in getting legislation passed, the president and conservatives in Congress ought to fight back against all efforts to bail out this law. When House Republicans sued President Obama in 2014 over the health-care act's cost-sharing subsidies, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, deeming these bailouts unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed, so today President Trump can easily drop that appeal and end unconstitutional Obamacare cronyism. Liberals in the Senate want new bailouts, but conservatives such as Cruz have warned colleagues that they must oppose any such efforts. The third step needed to cripple the health care law and protect Americans is for President Trump to direct the IRS to weaken the individual mandate and expand the hardship exemptions. The individual mandate has forced many Americans to purchase coverage they do not want and cannot afford, and even candidate Obama admitted in 2008 that under Massachusetts' plan, “there are people who are paying ﬁnes and still can’t afford [health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were.” He was right, and President Trump can give these Americans relief from fines easily by directing the IRS to ease the mandate. The two final steps the president and Republicans in Congress can take before the end of the year is to fully implement 90 percent cuts to Obamacare marketing, which would save the federal government some $90 million, and fully protect American seniors from new taxes on Medicare plans. Among the taxes going into effect next year, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D will see taxes increased nearly $3,000 each over the next decade if Congress fails to act. Time is running out, and President Trump and Republicans in Congress must act now to stop new Obamacare taxes, end the cronyism of bailouts, free Americans from burdensome federal mandates, cut wasteful ACA marketing, and protect America’s seniors. President Trump and conservatives have it within their power today to stop the most harmful aspects of the health care law, but time is short; the time to act is now. Answer: sending
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday called allegations of Russian election meddling a “hoax,” and insisted the media was the “greatest influence” on the 2016 campaign. Trump’s tweets early Friday appeared to respond to Facebook’s announcement that the social media giant will provide to congressional investigators the contents of 3,000 ads bought by a Russian agency. “The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favour of Crooked Hillary?” He later added: “The greatest influence over our election was the Fake News Media ‘screaming’ for Crooked Hillary Clinton. Next, she was a bad candidate!” The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary? The greatest influence over our election was the Fake News Media "screaming" for Crooked Hillary Clinton. Next, she was a bad candidate! Facebook has faced growing pressure from members of Congress to release the content of the ads. The company has already handed over the ads to the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Facebook also says it will now require political ads to disclose both who is paying for them and all ad campaigns those individuals or groups are running on Facebook. Answer:
irish