SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (1149369)7/13/2019 2:37:55 PM
From: Sdgla1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1573514
 
The leftists cling to their gov programs and fear of individual freedom like flies to shite..



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (1149369)7/13/2019 6:39:39 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 1573514
 

SOME OF THE SWEETEST WINNING YET!


Hillary Clinton Admits She’s Traumatized and Suffering From Trump Derangement Syndrome (VIDEO)

July 13, 2019, 3:21 pm by Cristina Laila



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (1149369)7/14/2019 8:13:08 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
majaman1978

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573514
 
Democrats and Republicans agree — Donald Trump will be re-elected




Michael Goodwin
nypost.com

It’s a mixed marriage of a certain kind. He was a Trump supporter all along and she ­detested the man.

But these days, they agree on one big thing: The president will be ­re-elected. Easily.

“Easily?” I asked, making sure I heard them correctly. Yes, they insisted, with her nodding as he said Democrats had gone bonkers and voters would respond by giving Trump four more years.


The recent Manhattan conversation would be insignificant except that it dovetails with national trends, namely a growing belief that Dems are not coming back to this world anytime soon. The election is still a long way off, but there is no sign that the radicalism surging through the party can be put back in the bottle before the election. What we see now is likely what voters will see in 2020.

One of many defining moments among the presidential contenders and pretenders came with their unanimous support for giving illegal immigrants free health care. They raised their hands to signal yes, as if the question was a ­no-brainer.

Implicit in their so-called compassion is an invitation for millions and millions more to cross the border and get free care. Free, of course, except to American taxpayers.

Those first debates produced lots of news, and a meaningful insight. While coverage understandably focused on which candidates were rising and which were falling, a potentially more important fact was that the extreme positions taken by all the candidates made Trump the real winner.

Emerson College polling found that, after the debates, the president improved in head-to-head matchups against the top tier, gaining about 5 points on each. As a result, instead of trailing five Dems, he now leads three of them and narrowed the gap with the other two, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

If Trump Derangement Syndrome were limited to the campaign trail, there might be hope. But an outbreak of epidemic proportions is claiming victims up and down the food chain.

Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone” and consider the case of Rep. Jerry Nadler, who appears to be possessed by impeachment fever. Nadler doesn’t have any ­evidence and doesn’t need any ­because Trump is his white whale. We know how that story ends.

Then there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad,” all of whom look more and more like rebels without a cause except their own fame. Scorned by their party’s leaders, they give the impression they’d rather burn it down than turn it down.

Their colleague from Missouri, Rep. William Clay, got it exactly right when he called them “juvenile,” but they don’t embarrass easily. What looked like a family squabble is now turning the Hatfields vs. the ­McCoys.

As Dems continue to devour each other, there are times when it would be wise for the president to follow the rule that you should never get in the way when your opponent is committing suicide. But this is not that time, and Trump made a smart move by announcing that he would seek to get the facts about citizens and noncitizens from existing government data ­instead of the census.

As he and Attorney General William Barr noted, the Supreme Court showed how to cure the mistakes made when the administration tried to put a citizenship question on the census questionnaire, but there is no time to go through another tortuous round of litigation.

While the new executive order surely will be challenged, Trump’s efforts draw a favorable contrast with the other side. The shocker is not that he’s trying to learn the facts about who is in the country, but that nobody on the left wants to know.

Because Trump is for it, they must oppose it at any cost. Chalk that up as more evidence that Dems hate the president more than they care about commonsense approaches to the nation’s problems.

Broadly speaking, Trump’s focus on borders is the linchpin of his presidency and the essence of putting Americans first. His commitment, which has ebbed at times, was always popular with his core supporters, but the appeal is spreading because of the unrelenting surge of illegal crossers and the Dems’ rigid opposition to any ­measure that could stop it.

More than 100,000 people were apprehended in June and officials say many more crossed undetected. No rational American can say the situation is acceptable, yet even Friday, Ocasio-Cortez was still calling it a “manufactured” ­crisis.

Similarly, the widespread hysteria over the planned roundup of those with outstanding deportation orders is bizarre. If deportation orders are meaningless, why bother with the expense and trouble of having a border at all?

Incredible as it seems, an America without borders appears to be where the left is going, with AOC the latest to say that Homeland Security should be eliminated. If she knows, she doesn’t care that the creation of the Cabinet-level department was in reaction to the horrors of 9/11. The measure passed the House with 68 percent of the vote and got 90 votes in the Senate, with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton among those voting aye.

But if AOC gets her way, it’s bye-bye FEMA, airport security, the Coast Guard, border control, the Secret Service and nearly a score of other agencies.

That won’t happen, of course, because the idea is utterly insane and because Nancy Pelosi is too smart of a speaker to let it ever come close to a vote. But even just the talk of eliminating the security designed after the worst attack in America’s history is the stuff from which landslides are made — for the other party.



To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (1149369)7/23/2019 12:25:27 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider
Winfastorlose

  Respond to of 1573514
 
The Fake Science of Global Warming
JOHN HINDERACKER
powerlineblog.com

Francis Menton sticks it to the global warming lobby, good and hard:

If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive….

On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:

* What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

* What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

* Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!


* You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union.

This is not science, obviously. There is much more at the link, but I will close with this:

Since about 2007, there has been a notable counter-theory to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The counter-theory is that fluctuations in world temperatures over the past several decades have been caused more by fluctuations in the cloud cover of the earth than by increases in greenhouse gases like CO2. This counter-theory is often called the “Svensmark hypothesis,” after Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who proposed it.
***
I have no position on whether this hypothesis is “right.” However, prior to the collection of data, it is a plausible hypothesis — equally as plausible as the hypothesis that increasing temperatures are mainly caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. Accepting the human-caused warming hypothesis as proved requires rejecting the alternative Svensmark hypothesis (as well as all other plausible null hypotheses; but let’s stick with Svensmark for now).

Which brings us to the Povrovsky and Kauppinen, et al., papers. Povrovsky did something that somebody should have long since done by now, which is to collect month-by-month satellite cloud-cover data for the earth for the period 1983-2009, and plot it on a graph, and then compare that graph to the month-by-month temperature graphs. What is the correlation of the two?

It turns out to be exceptionally close:



This is from the article by Povlovsky and Kauppinen:

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature.

The debate over global temperature trends rages on numerous levels, and the alarmists are getting the worst of it pretty much everywhere. Actual science is winning over “climate science.”