Posts Tagged ‘MSM’

UDDebatt now on Twitter

7 augusti, 2016

I have been thinking for a long time that maybe I should have a Twitter account to accompany this blog. But I always decided against it.

You all know that I write long, detailed posts that try to explain what really is going on behind the scenes. Which is absolutely necessary. You cannot explain complex international events and developments with thousands of years of history behind it in a soundbite of 7-10 seconds.

That’s the MSM/Old media/politician way. And they very carefully “chose” what they want to report or not.

But I now think it is time to try out Twitter as “soundbite” complement to this blog.

The lead words: Truth, Freedom, Justice, Responsibility and Accountability

As the blog, it is going to be a frank, open and interesting forum. Concentrating on the important “Stuff” that the MSM/Old media “chose” to ignore.

It’s not going to be an instant news type, More highlighting important news that MSM media don’t think you should care about,

You find it here: https://twitter.com/UDDebatt and my username @UDDebatt.

Here is two examples of my tweets:

Syria: https://twitter.com/UDDebatt/status/762068121263960065

https://twitter.com/UDDebatt/status/761667989586468864

Ukraine: https://twitter.com/UDDebatt/status/762039648478699522

Russia: https://twitter.com/UDDebatt/status/762276440545062912

EU: https://twitter.com/UDDebatt/status/762275868932771844

So enjoy and engage!

Sophia

Annonser

The betrayal of journalism and the first amendment by the mainstream media in USA

2 oktober, 2012

“But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here.  The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment.  The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American peopleAnd it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on.  We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.“

An excellent summary by democrat Pat Caddell on the very sad state of “journalism” in America. And the utter betrayal by the mainstream media (press, TV and radio) of their role as journalists and protector of the first amendment.

Pat Caddell is a lifelong democrat and worked for the McGovern campaign. He also worked on the Jimmy Carter campaign, for Gary Hart, for Joe Biden, and Jerry Brown. 

He was their election strategy and pollster man.

Pat Caddell is also the founder of Cambridge Survey Research, a public opinion pollster, and an expert in analyzing public opinion.

He has also worked as a consultant to various movies, TV shows, and documentaries etc.

And this is nothing new.  We have seen so many different examples of this betrayal of journalist in their role as journalist.  In this blog, I have given many examples when it comes to the Global Warming Hysteria.

Where the “journalists” and the mainstream media ACTIVELY choose to become propagandists and his master’s voice. Even worse, they ACTIVELY became attack dogs and tried to suppress and oppress EVERY dissenting voice and protest.

This is the ultimate betrayal of ALL what journalism is supposed to be. And the role they are supposed to play in a “free society”.  Goebbels, and Ilya Ehrenburg (his soviet counterpart), would be REALLY PROUD of these men and women!

As I have told you before, I am a former journalist. But I quite in disgust because of what was going on. And this was way back. And compared to now it was as kindergarten then.

And to confirm the total incompetent Romney campaign, including the republican party establishment handling of it, Romeny said on Wednesday:

As if to prove this point, Mitt Romney has now told Jan Crawford of CBS News that the major media are not in the tank for Obama and that he has no plans to challenge liberal media bias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57521036/romney-obama-engaged-in-character-assassination/

“Later, Crawford asked Romney if the mainstream media is ”in the tank for President Obama,” as many conservatives allege.

”Well, I think we have a system of free press, people are able to provide their own perspective based on their own beliefs, I think there’s some people who are more in my camp, there’s a lot of people who are more in his camp, and I don’t worry about that,” Romney responded.”

And the headline for this news story: is ironically – Romney: Obama engaged in ”character assassination”

But Romney is not worried

Well, it is no surprise since one of the chief architects of the strategy behind the campaign is Karl Rove. The strategy is to be “nice”, to be cautious, no attacks and no confronting the biased media.

In the meantime, Romney is being slaughtered in crucial states by the “not so nice” attack ads and a merciless campaign by Obama.

If you look at the key 11 swing states (hold 146 Electoral College votes) won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. In 2008, Obama won these swing states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

In one month from the beginning of September until today, Obama has gone from 44-45% to 50-51%.

Romney has gone from 46% to 45%.

From roughly even to a 5-6% lead by Obama according to the Rasmussen  Daily Swing State Tracking Poll. That’s the biggest lead Obama has had in a long time. We have to go back to the end of February this year to find similar figures when Obama topped at 50%.

I will not bother you with a lengthy analysis of the incompetent Romney campaign, and the republican party establishments hiring of the wrong people.

Just two quick examples:

Ed Gillespie, who Pat Caddell talked about, is a senior advisorto the Romney campaign. He started a lobbying firm with former Clinton White House counsel Jack Quinn, responsible for the pardon of Marc Rich, among other things.

Gillespie will make money no matter what happens on this Election Day. Or the next election. Etc. So do you think he is very much concerned about the media bias problem and who is really winning the race?

Another is his communications director and longtime aide Eric Fehrnstromon. Now famous for his comment to CNN in March, saying that Romney was in realty an “Etch A Sketch” man.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/03/21/exp-point-fehrstrom-romney-two.cnn

Implying that he has no firm believes, policies and positions. You can take whatever he says and you can shake it up and it will be gone and he is going to draw a completely new picture.

With “senior advisers” like this who needs enemies.

As a side not, the Swedish government has invited this Karl Rove several times for political and election advice.

They really know how to pick them!

In addition, they pay big (taxpayers) bucks for it too.

Pat Caddell  September 21– “The Audacity of Corruption”

The text of the speech:

Thank you.  Glad to be with you.  This could take a long time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this.  I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybodyWhich is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity peopleThat changed in 1980.  There’s a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.  But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous.  We have a First Amendment for one reason.  We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.  We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truthThat is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%.  So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.  I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism  in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.”  What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail.  A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why.  That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe.  David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Advisor—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria.  Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t.  And no one has raised this in the mainstream media.  He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions.  No one asked him whatsoever about that.  He was not inquired.  George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist.  He has two platforms.  I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist.  But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran. I just finished  surveys , some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now , and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending.  This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States.  And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.”  I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security.  In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times]  said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point.  Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this.  They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.  Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration we had Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator.  That’s a really unbiased source!  And the press, of course, won’t look into this.  It will not ask the question.  But the Republicans could have called them down.  Yes, the President could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?”  As she said  when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!”  I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption.  60%, or 80% —it’s closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the President and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack ObamaBut nobody says a word.  Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power.  And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past.  To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated.  I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps.  Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.”  This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories togetherThe problem here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here.  It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya.  Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack.  None of that is on the national news.  None of it is being pressed in the papersIf a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!  It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment.  But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view.  It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.”  Nobody has asked that question.  This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference.  Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident.  But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it.  But I want to go through two other quick points.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the WorldTradeCenter in 1993, out of jail.  Prison.  I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now.  They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood!  The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States.  He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy.  The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off.  On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration.  We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it offBut no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories.  They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about.  Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it.  But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated.  Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign.  When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported.  And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback.  We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything The Republicans don’t.  The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason.  Despite organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out.  If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months!  I’d have been looking at individual reporters!  I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you!  And they are here to do this!”  And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press.  This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press.  You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning.  But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it.  And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore.  There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here.  The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment.  The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.  And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on.  We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.  And so that’s as much as I can do in twenty minutes.  So then we—we have a few moments for questions.  Yes, sir?

ARONOFF: Let’s get a few questions here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER : Yes, I wanted to offer my interpretation for why this dynamic is happening.  I’d like your reaction.  I think that the media is working with the government, because the government hands out so many freebies—

CADDELL: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: —you know, for market share, and, therefore, they have to work in sync with them in order to ensure the good graces.  I think, also, the advertisers who generate the revenue for the newspapers are also getting those freebies, and so they can then influence the media—

CADDELL: The corruption in this town is so great.  Everybody in Washington seems to almost be on the take—with the exception of everybody in this room, and the assistants here.  But, I swear to God, it’s so—the idea that I should get something, you know—the reason, when you have firms that have Ed Gillespie in business with Jack Quinn, who was the counsel for Bill Clinton, and responsible for the pardon of Marc Rich, among other things, is because everybody in this—those people on K Street, in both parties, are about arrangements and money.  Everyone in the press is.  We have stimulus money being given.  We have people who, as I said, the relationships, when people are making contracts, and their husbands and wives are getting—Jay Carney’s wife works in the government!  Now he works—he was the head of the Time Magazine!  He was a liar then, and a liar now, apparently!  You know—and nobody says there’s anything wrong with thisAnd you’re right: Everybody’s on the take here, and everybody’s cutting up their stock.  That’s why, what used to be one of the best and most important things for the press, which was the investigative journalism of corruption and money, the stealing of the taxpayers, the looting of the Treasury, isn’t an issue, and why no one speaks of it in this town.  Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Pat, just a quick question.  Is it in violation—can it be seen as a violation of their charter for the major networks to demonstrate such obvious bias?  I mean, is that a violate their FCC license agreements?

CADDELL: Well, their license agreements only go to their stations.  They don’t really go to the networks themselves.  But I—you see, that’s why we’re at this slippery slope.  This is what scares me.  Because you start saying, “Well, somebody should do something about this.”

My argument, when I speak to the press, is very simple: One day you’re going to get my combination of George Wallace and Huey Long running for public office.  He’s going to get up and say how—he’s going to point out “How the press is going to get me, and let me tell you what they’re going to say about me, because they want to stop me,” and he’s going to say, “You know what?  We’ve gone too far with this First Amendment stuff.  We need to make them serve the people.”  We’re sliding toward a system by establishing the fact that the press, in fact, has prostituted themselves in the service of a political party, or a political candidate, and once you go down this road and say, “That’s happening,” then people say, “Why do we need a First Amendment?  Why should we protect them?  They’re not protecting us.”  That’s the threat here.  That’s the danger that I worry about, because we desperately need a real free press, whatever its faults, that protects the people.  And soon, they will be owned by the people—we’re getting very close to that.  Watching the coverage of this stuff, in the last ten days, on Libya, and the press corps and the networks serving as nothing but offshoots of the White House Press Office, is really scary.  We’re going to get to this question, because that is down that road.  These people are going to destroy freedom in America.  I don’t care about their partisan preferences, I care that, in the end of the day, somebody’s going to say, “Enough of this!”  And somebody will carry the day, and that’ll be that.  Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: Thank you.  You—thank you!  Incredibly good twenty minutes!  I agree with everything you said!  I am very concerned about Romney’s poor campaign, combined with the media bias the way it is.  Is there anything that Romney can do at this point?

CADDELL: Well, he should’ve been out there already!  He should’ve been out there pushing back—and so should the Republican establishment.  The Republican establishment, as I said, in this town—I mean, all they seem to be in the business, to me, a lot of the establishment, is getting a lot of money to line their pockets, and not fighting or doing things that are effective.  Why aren’t they out there challenging this?  Why isn’t Romney himself getting up and saying, “I’m running against two organizations: I’m running against the Democrats and the President, and I’m running against the mainstream media, which will not tell you the truth”?  Now let me tell you something: You want to liven up some of your rallies?  That’ll do it.  But they don’t do it because this man dares to be cautious.  He’s going to dare-to-be-cautious himself right out of a race that was his to lose, and he’s losing it.

ARONOFF: One last question.  Anybody?  Go ahead.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Are there no patriots in the media who—

CADDELL: Oh, yes, there are!  There are some.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Do they not see where—

CADDELL: Well, the problem is—let me say this—because nobody raises the question, because no one raises from the viewpoint that I’m raising it from.  To raise it from the viewpoint where Republicans or conservatives “We don’t like what you’re doing to us,” only makes them dismiss that.  What is not to be dismissed is what this is doing, and what it is in terms of the specifics of challenge.  These individual reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they can’t stand the heat.  That’s my experience.  You ever watch reporters under attack in a public venue and so forth?  They wilt like—they melt like ice on the equator.  The fact is that they need to be called out.  Their organizations need to be called out.  Ezra Klein still writes for The Washington Post?  I mean, this is unbelievable!  They had a secret operation group, “Journo” group, online, coordinating how they would promote Obama, and how they would attack Republicans—and he’s still there?  But nobody calls out the publisher, or the editor, or whatever—there is no effort here—or calls him.

The fact is, if I were out there, if I were doing one of these campaigns, I wouldn’t let one of these guys by with anything.  I would make the fact that the American people, already expressed in the Gallup poll, say—I would give them all the evidence they need to confirm their beliefs.  I would change the dialogue here.  But until that happens, you’re gonna have two teams—your whole team has an echo chamber of support—attacking you.  How do you ever expect to win?  Really?  I mean, you can when it’s the national tide, 1980.  We have a different press now.  They have now made the decision they will control the political process.  They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party.  That’s the legal issue that I would have been exploring.  I mean, I would begin to put the heat on.

But the Republicans never said a word.  When Comcast, which bought out the administration—they’re my cable company in Charleston, they’re just so bad, I guess every cable company is awful, but they’re the worst—buys a network, is allowed to buy a network—the Justice Department allowed this—no Republican stood up and said, “This should be stopped!”  I mean, really!  You get what you ask for.  So, anyway, I’ve got to go.  I’ve got to go do TV.

ARONOFF: Thank you very much.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om<a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through HUGE smoothing radius

15 februari, 2011

As a continuation of my previous post How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations I will continue my expose of official ways to manipulate data. This time about the smoothing radius.

It sounds like a very boring technical detail, and it is, but it plays an important part in the official manipulation of the temperature record. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people have no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So what is a “smoothing radius”? And why is it so important?

A smoothing radius is: EVERYTHING within 1200 km in ALL directions from the weather station IS GIVEN THE SAME TEMPERATURE AS AT THE STATION!

Regardless of facts, geography and data.

Here is the official description: “Smoothing radius: Distance over which a station influences regional temperature.”

This is of course a VERY HANDY tool. First you drop most of the measuring stations. And the one you chose and keep are very strategically placed. Then you let the stations you ”kept” decide,  or as they so nicely put it “influence” the temperature within a radius of 1200 km.

Now you can influence and “control” the official world temperature “record”.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And what “happened” to the temperature after that – the temperature went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

To recapitulate:

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

So let’s look at the difference so you can understand why this “technicality” plays such a big role:

                           1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing

                           250 km (155.3 miles) smoothing

Noticing any difference?

The difference is HUGE and VERY revealing.

See ALL these grey areas that “suddenly appears” in the 250 km one? These huge areas of the globe which are grey are the ones where they don’t have ANY DATA. (I.e. the data is there but they don’t use it since dropping of ALL these stations).

That is also why they always “officially” use the 1200 km smoothing in their graphics.

So that you wouldn’t know that Antarctica, Arctic, HUGE PARTS of Africa and Asia is NOT covered in “their measurements”.

Also notice, and this is VERY TYPICAL of them, that ALL these parts that ARE NOT COVERED ARE ALL VERY RED (i.e. very hot).

Do you think this is by coincidence?

And what does that says about the “science” behind this?

And also remember that a 250 km smoothing in it self is VERY large.

If you could use a 100 km smoothing you would see EVEN more parts of the world in grey – i.e. there is no data.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

To show you how ABSURD a 1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing is if used in ANY “scientific” way or shape or form, I am going to give you 3 examples.

Stockholm.

If the weather station is placed in Stockholm (Sweden) the temperature there would be given to Moscow, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warszawa, Kiev, Oslo, Helsinki and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Paris.

If the weather station is placed in Paris (France) the temperature there would be given to London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Dublin, Budapest and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Denver.

If the weather station is placed in Denver(Colorado) the temperature there would be given to Las Vegas (NV), Phoenix (AR), over the border to Canada and Mexico, St Louis (IL), Minneapolis (MN) and Dallas (TX) etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

That’s why “officially” the high Bolivian Andes can have a “record warm” when the temperature is actually measured 1200 km away at the beaches in Peru. Or in the jungles of Brazil.

There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990 from Bolivia.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…”

The same goes on in the Arctic.

And the Antarctic.

And over huge parts of Africa.

And over huge parts of Asia.

And over huge parts of Latin America.

And over the oceans which make up 70% of the surface of earth.

So to sum up the “science” behind the “Global Temperature Record”:

It doesn’t cover 70% of the surface, Antarctic, Arctic, huge parts of Africa, huge parts of Asia and huge parts of Latin America.

Besides that everything is just fine.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations

23 januari, 2011

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

(See for example my posts:

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have,

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years,

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data.

Minus 60 C or not?

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data)

Just one example of this historical “adjustment and tweaking” they are doing:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times 2006 to beginning of 2008. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

And what a “coincidence” that the data is always “modified” in only on direction – guess which one.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit there agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Just a couple of weeks ago a new report was published by Patrick Frank that shows that there has NEVER been a measurement of Sensor measurement uncertainty in ALL the weather stations used for the “Global” temperature “record”.  And that “the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected”.

UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE INDEX: A REPRESENTATIVE LOWER LIMIT

Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA, Energy and Environment, Volume 21, Number 8 / December 2010 DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Abstract here:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q557742n3221/?p=e174cd02151f44d7bd601ebb287be383&pi=0

Abstract :

“Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”

Summary and Conclusion:

“The assumption of global air temperature sensor noise stationarity is empirically untested and unverified. Estimated noise uncertainty propagates as

   rather than .

Future noise uncertainty in monthly means would greatly diminish if the siting of surface stations is improved and the sensor noise variances become known, monitored, and empirically verified as stationary.

The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.”

See also the letter to the Editors (APS Physics) by Patrick Frank:

http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/fall09.cfm

See also

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/what-evidence-for-unprecedented-warming/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/

So I thought I show you the drastic dropping of weather stations in 1989-1992. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people has no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And you can see on the graph what “happened” to the temperature after that. For some very “odd” reason it went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

                        1970 (15 094 Stations)

                      1990 (9 475 Stations)

                        2000 (5 265 Stations)

Where did all the stations in China, India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia, Antarctica, and Australia go?????

AND WHY??????

Whole continents “just disappeared” and most of the landmass of Earth is now NOT COVERED.

And how do you compare the “average” Global temperature when they dropped 9829 stations between 1970 and 2000??????

9829 stations that where part of the “average” global temperature????

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

And it gets worse (which in itself s an “achievement”). Look at the map for 2010 – EVEN MORE landmass are “gone” on purpose. Including large parts of USA. See the huge contrast between 2000 an 2010 regarding USA.

                             2010

See also some of my previous post on this subject:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211

How “they” (NASA) make Bolivia a VERY HOT PLACE EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE STATIONS OR DATA FROM THERE.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

“One Small Problem. There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)”

Here are some more glaring examples of this “tweaking and adjustment” of the temperature “record”:

NEW ENGLAND’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY AND TRENDS (1911 – 2009)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ne_temp_history_trends.pdf

WHY NOAA AND NASA PROCLAMATIONS SHOULD BE IGNORED

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf

“NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here. He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.“

See also

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

Just look at this “tweaking” done by NASA/NOAA in August 2007 to the temperature “record”. They just “happened” to LOWER the temperature 1880-1900 by OVER 0.3 C and then they just “happened” to RISE the temperature 1990-2007 by OVER 0.2 C. So “suddenly” you have a nice “warming trend” where there were NONE before. In fact it was a lowering trend from year 2000 which “suddenly” change to a warming trend with OVER 0.4 C difference.

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

US Agencies Still Fiddling Temperature Record, Reports SPPI

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=671981&ret=close

NASA and NOAA, which each receive close to half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding, have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making “global warming” look worse than it is, according to a new paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute.  The findings are reported by Joe D’Aleo, a leading meteorologist.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “Despite billions spent on official claims about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made ‘global warming’, opinion polls show the public are no longer fooled. A  main reason why the voters buy don’t climate alarmism any more is that the tiny but well-connected, lavishly-funded Climategate clique keeps on being caught out bending the scientific evidence.

The problem of data integrity has recently been commented on by MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

Mr. D’Aleo’s paper is a damning exposé of the inner workings of two agencies of the US Government –

The global temperature data from surface stations is “seriously compromised: the data suffer significant contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as changes in land cover and land use”. Numerous peer review papers suggest contamination of 30%, 50% or more.

The state of the temperature database, in the words of one of its operators, is “hopeless”, with “hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy  and duplicate stations”.

•The NASA warming is achieved in part by inventing data in arctic areas where no stations exist.

In the US, the warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, and the warmest year was 1934, NASA’s chief climate scientist announced after the last super El Nino.

NOAA tampered with temperature data in 2000, 2007 and 2009 to create an artificial increase of 0.3 F° in the warming trend since the 1930s.

•NASA admits even today on their website, there is no generally-accepted standard for surface air temperatures.

Temperatures for the 1930s to 1950s have been readjusted downward to make the warming since then seem greater than it is.

Temperatures for recent decades have been readjusted upward to make the warming of the 20th century seem greater than it is.

Over time in the NASA database, the warming trend has been steadily increasing – not because the weather is getting warmer but because NASA keeps tampering with the data.

The data tampering became more serious and more frequent in 2007, when a strong la Niña caused widespread and profound global cooling.

Adjustments by NOAA and NASA, rather than real-world temperature changes, account for virtually all the apparent warming trend in the global data.

NASA and NOAA have repeatedly resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of the unadjusted data and documentation of adjustments made, probably because they fear independent analysis will demonstrate the adjustments are unwarranted and warming insignificant

Global temperature databases are “seriously flawed” and “can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts”.

In a lengthy paper updated in August 2010, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? , Watts and D’Aleo catalogued numerous case studies of temperature data tampering around the world.  This issue is of critical importance  because these very data sets are used as justification of advocacy for formulating and implementing unprecedented policy decisions seeking  radical transformations of our society and institutions.

Said Ferguson, “So blatantly obvious has the tampering become that Congress must mandate a thorough investigation of the temperature records, independent of the government scientists controlling them.  A ‘B’ team of non-government and non-UN experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges, bodges  and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists.”

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS

(by SPPI)

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.

5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.

 

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.

8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. Additional adjustments are made to the data which result in an increasing apparent trend. In many cases, adjustments do this by cooling off the early record.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Due to recently increasing frequency of eschewing rural stations and favoring urban airports as the primary temperature data sources, global terrestrial temperature data bases are thus seriously flawed and can no longer be representative of both urban and rural environments. The resulting data is therefore problematic when used to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP should trigger a review of these documents assessing the base uncertainty of forecasts and policy language.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Catastrophic Climate Change – All human activity ceased in Florida and Georgia!

15 januari, 2011

Temperature dropped nearly 10F below average during December.

Did you see any headlines like this from the “Mainstream media” who otherwise are so eager to spread the Global Warming Hysteria?

NO – And this exactly the point. Because, despite this drastic lowering of temperature, life goes on as normal in Florida and Georgia.

And since this was a drastic lowering of the temperature, and does not fit their agenda, no big headlines except in some of the local media.

Isn’t it interesting that a PREDICTED (by their beloved computer models) rise of temperature of 1.5-2F in the next 100 years is considered a catastrophe for humankind and an eminent treat for our survival?.

By the way, these computer models are the same models THAT CAN NOT PREDICT THE WEATHER A WEEK FROM NOW, OR THE WEATHER A WEEK AGO. But they claim that they can predict the temperature a 100 years from now with 0.1F certainty!

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money to “fight” this predicted “Global Warming” and to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.  Ramming through their political agenda at all costs.

So lets look what happened in Florida and Georgia in December.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Florida:

This year, the December temperature is – 8.6 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is – 6.7 F cooler. If we compare with1998 this year’s December is – 14.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -14 F cooler

This December is – 9.3F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -9.3F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered by the same Global Warming Hysterics to be a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.3F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEARis a total catastrophe for humankind.

By the way, if you wondered, 0.02F per year is 0.00005F per day.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Florida’s temperature is – 3.3 F cooler than1990, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1948 it is – 3 F cooler. If we compare with1911 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 2.3 F cooler

This year is – 1.33F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 5th coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Georgia:

This year, the December temperature is – 17.3 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is -16.5 F cooler. If we compare with1984 this year’s December is – 15.8 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -13.2 F cooler

This December is 8.34F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -8.34F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.27F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEAR is a total catastrophe for humankind.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Georgia’s temperature is – 3.4 F cooler than1921, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1998 it is 2.8 F cooler. If we compare with1946 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 1.7 F cooler

This year is – 0.91F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 22nd coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>


%d bloggare gillar detta: