Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Global Warming Cartoons





Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges


A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster" paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century," Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.
The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.
"In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference," Smith said in a statement. "Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials."
Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.
Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.
“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.
A NOAA spokesman, in an email to The Washington Times, said NOAA “stands behind its world-class scientists” but also that it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”
Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”
Climate scientists have closed ranks around Karl. A study published last month in Science Advances, by Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.
In addition, climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has worked with the NOAA, said Bates wasn’t involved in the work that he’s criticizing. Bates disputed the assertion.
While Karl, and other scientists who believe man-made climate change poses a major threat had the ear of the Obama administration, President Trump has shown signs of skepticism. It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

Cotton: Immigration system 'does not serve the interests of American citizens'


Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. told Fox News Tuesday that his proposed legislation to halve the number of green cards issued to legal immigrats was "in keeping with historic norms" and "very generous."
COTTON, PERDUE UNVEIL BILL TO CUT LEGAL IMMIGRATION 'IN HALF' 
"What I simply think we need to do is get a legal immigration system that works for American workers," Cotton told Martha MacCallum on "The First 100 Days." "Over the last several decades, we’ve seen wages stagnate for blue collar workers. At the same time, we’ve had record high numbers of unskilled and low-skilled immigration. I think those two things are directly connected."
Cotton, who has been among President Donald Trump's most loyal supporters on Capitol Hill, said that Trump's victory in last year's presidential election was a signal from the American people to lawmakers to fix the country's immigration system.
"But the single issue on which he campaigned above all others and set himself apart was immigration and refocusing our immigration system on working Americans," he said.
The proposed legislation would also end the Diversity Visa Lottery, which Cotton called "outdated," as well as cut down on the number of refugees admitted to the U.S.
"Only about one in 15 immigrants coming in today is coming in because they have demonstrated skills or because they fill a demonstrated economic need," Cotton said. "That means that they directly compete with high school graduates and people that don’t have a high school degree. Of course, that means there are going to be fewer jobs for those American citizens and lower wages."

Justice Department argues for restoration of Trump travel ban


The Justice Department argued Tuesday that a federal appeals court should overturn a district court judge's order halting President Trump's executive action suspending travel to the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim nations.
The hearing before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges was the greatest legal challenge yet to the travel ban, which has upended travel to the U.S. for more than a week and tested the new administration's use of executive power.
Several states have fought the ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen — and insisted that it is unconstitutional.
Justice Department attorney August Flentje asked the court to restore Trump's order, contending that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, as well as suspend classes of aliens when their entry to the country is otherwise detrimental to national security.
"That's what the president did here," Flentje argued.
The government described the executive order as a "90-day pause" needed to ensure adequate standards were in place for visa screening, which Flentje called "plainly constitutional."
Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven nations to terrorism.
Flentje cited a number of Somalis in the U.S. who, he said, had been connected to the al-Shabab terrorist group terror group after judges asked for evidence. Flentje added that the case was moving fast and the government had not yet included additional evidence to support the ban.

Flentje also noted that the executive order was based in part on a determination made by the Obama administration and Congress over the past two years that labeled the countries in question as either having a significant presence by a foreign terrorist organization or being a state sponsor of terrorism.

The final minutes of the hearing were largely devoted to whether the travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims.

Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, what evidence he had that it was motivated by religion.
"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected."
He said only 15 percent of the world's Muslims were affected, according to his calculations, and said the "concern for terrorism from those connected to radical Islamic sects is hard to deny."
Noah Purcell, Washington state's solicitor general, cited public statements by Trump calling for a ban on the entry of Muslims to the U.S. He said the states did not have to show every Muslim is harmed, only that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination.
Under questioning from Clifton, Flentje did not dispute that Trump made the statements.

Washington state, Minnesota and other states challenging the ban want the appellate court to allow a temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban — which also temporarily suspended the country's refugee program — to stand as their lawsuit moves through the legal system.
Purcell said that restraining order has not harmed the U.S. government.

Instead, he told the panel, the order had harmed Washington state residents by splitting up families, holding up students trying to travel for their studies and preventing people from visiting family abroad.

Clifton said he suspected that only a "small fraction" of the state's residents were affected.

The court adjourned with Friendland promising a ruling would come "as soon as possible." Whatever the court eventually decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
It is also possible that the panel could make a ruling on a technical point, such as whether the lower court's order is properly classified as a temporary restraining order, rather than on the larger merits of the case.

Warren finds voice, support after formally silenced at Sessions nomination debate


Sen. Elizabeth Warren took to Facebook late Tuesday night to finish delivering her speech after being formally silenced on the Senate floor for quoting Coretta Scott King during her criticism of President Trump’s nominee for attorney general.
The dramatic scene unfolded when the Massachusetts Democrat ran afoul of the chamber’s arcane rules-- Rule XIX-- by reading a three-decade-old letter from Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow that dated to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ failed judicial nomination three decades ago.
King wrote that when acting as a federal prosecutor, Sessions used his power to ‘‘chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.’’
Quoting King technically put Warren in violation of Senate rules for ‘‘impugning the motives’’ of Sessions, though the letter was written about 10 years before Sessions was elected to the Senate.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called her formal silencing “totally unnecessary.” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said both sides “should be ashamed" about the atmosphere on the floor.
“This place is going to devolve into nothing but a jungle,” Hatch said.
Though silenced, Warren later posted on Twitter that, “I will not be silent about a nominee for AG who has made derogatory & racist comments that have no place in our justice system.”
Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell invoked the rules. After a few parliamentary moves, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 49-to-43 to silence Warren.
Warren is now forbidden from speaking again on Sessions’ nomination. A vote on Sessions is expected Wednesday evening. He is expected to be confirmed.
"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted," McConnell said. Her supporters later used #shepersisted as a rally cry.
Bernice King, the daughter of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King wrote on Twitter, “Thank you @SenWarren for being the soul of the Senate during the #Sessions hearing.”
The Democratic National Committee said it is a “sad day in America when the words of Martin Luther King Jr’s widow are not allowed on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Warren went on to read the letter from King on Facebook, which attracted two million views, according to The New York Times, an audience likely far greater than she would have gained on C-SPAN. Supporters took to social media with the hashtag #LetLizSpeak and #ShePersisted as something as a rally cry.
Warren, 67, hasn't ruled out a future White House run but has said she is focused on the 2018 senate race.
According to an Associated Press review of Warren's latest campaign finance reports, the Massachusetts Democrat took in a hefty $5.9 million in campaign contributions from January 2015 through the end of 2016.

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos