Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Scientists call out New York Times for incorrect claim about climate report
Editor's note: Several hours after
publication of this article, a New York Times spokesperson returned an
earlier request for comment to say the story had been updated.
Scientists appear to have debunked
The New York Times' claim it was leaked a secret, gloomy climate
change report which it published amid fears President Trump would
suppress it.
On Monday, The New York Times published
a story saying there are concerns that the Trump administration could
suppress what’s known as the National Climate Assessment, a project of
the U.S. Global Change Research Program.The story, titled “Scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate report,” said the draft report “has not yet been made public” but “a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.”
The paper also said “those who challenge scientific data on human-caused climate change" are worried the report will be publicly released.
But those who worked on the report are pushing back against the claims, saying the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months.
“It's not clear what the news is in this story,” Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who is listed on the report as among the lead authors, said on Twitter.
The Internet Archive, a website that archives content published online, says it downloaded the report from the Environmental Protection Agency's website in January 2017.
Kopp noted the draft was published on the site during the public comment period, but then taken down after the period. But it still remained online at the Internet Archive's site.
“The Times' leaked draft has been on the Internet Archive since January, during the public comment period,” Kopp said.
Another scientist who authored the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech who leads the school’s Climate Science Center, also emphasized that the report is already publicly available.
“Important to point out that this report was already accessible to anyone who cared to read it during public review & comment time,” she tweeted. “Few did.”
Hayhoe added: “Side-by-side comparison shows that @nytimes has public review version of our new climate sci report - so, no leak. It was available to all.”
Hayhoe also said anyone who wanted access to the draft could still request a copy from the National Academy of Sciences.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday said the New York Times story is “disappointing, yet entirely predictable.”
“As others have pointed out – and The New York Times should have noticed – drafts of this report have been published and made widely available online months ago during the public comment period,” Sanders said. “The White House will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date.”
Kopp, the Rutgers University scientist, said Tuesday afternoon that The Times updated the online story to post a newer draft, the Fifth Order Draft, which is currently under review. A correction, however, has not yet been added.
The New York Times story cites an anonymous scientist involved in the report as saying he and others are concerned the Trump administration would suppress the report.
“It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his Cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited,” The New York Times said.
The story said that the National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft, but scientists are “awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.”
But Kopp, one of the authors, pointed out in his tweets about the New York Times story that the White House hasn’t missed its August 18 review deadline yet.
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
White House adviser Miller on immigration: 'What's happening now is not the norm'
Fresh off a heated confrontation with a CNN
reporter at a press briefing last week, White House Senior Policy
Adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News he's focused on implementing
President Donald Trump’s agenda, not any media backlash against him.
Last week, President Trump endorsed
the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act,
legislation which aims to cut the number of green cards issued in half
from 1 million to 500,000 a year.
“Right now I’m focused on trying to get more support,
as much as we can, for the RAISE Act and the president’s other policy
initiatives,” Miller said Tuesday night in an exclusive interview with
Laura Ingraham on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”“We admitted about 300,000 people a year in the '70s,” Miller said. “About half a million a year in the '80s. Now it’s over a million a year. So, what’s happening right now is actually not the norm. It’s actually unusual how many people we’re letting in right now.
“There’s segments of the extreme media - I wouldn’t call it mainstream - because it’s extreme to want no borders. It’s extreme to want to have unlimited, cheap migration driving down working-class wages. These are extreme positions,” Miller continued. “And so, the extreme media is going to do whatever they can to tear down this president, but as long as the people stand for what they want and what they believe in, we’re going to keep winning.”
TRUMP AIDE STEPHEN MILLER SLAMS CNN STAR ACOSTA ON IMMIGRATION
In the confrontation with CNN’s Jim Acosta during a White House press briefing on Aug. 2, Miller accused the reporter of suffering from a “cosmopolitan bias.” That comment came after Acosta asked if the bill’s preference for English speakers was geared so that the U.S. would limit its immigrants to those from Great Britain and Australia.
"I can honestly say I am shocked at your statement that you think only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English,” Miller stated. “It reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree — this is an amazing moment.”
The two men also sparred over the meaning of "The New Colossus," the Emma Lazarus poem attached to the base of the Statue of Liberty -- before the tensions dissipated.
“The media’s gotten the president wrong, of course, since the day he announced and every day since, and he’s been right and they’ve been wrong,” Miller said on Tuesday while discussing the act.
“Well, it’s an American issue,” he said. “Bottom line is that Democrats support it, Independents support it and Republican voters support it. And, eventually, if an idea has support from a broad swath of the public, it’s only a question of time when it happens.”
N. Korea is Developing Mini-Nuclear Warheads for Missiles
OAN Newsroom
U.S. officials are warning the international community that North Korea has successfully developed a miniature-nuclear warhead for it’s intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The new data comes from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which completed an assessment of North Korea’s weapons capabilities.
The report also says Pyongyang could possess up to 60 nuclear weapons, although the number could be much lower.
This week the Japanese Defense Ministry also concluded there was evidence North Korea has created smaller nuclear weapons.
Communist leader Kim Jon Un continues to push ICBM testing, but officials still believe the regime has yet to master re-entry developments as well as target accuracy.
Just recently, the United Nations slammed new sanctions on the hostile country in an effort to denounce missile development and testing.
Even China supported the movement.
Meanwhile, President Trump warns North Korea to stop making threats or it will face quote — “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
He made the comments Tuesday from New Jersey.
On Twitter Tuesday morning the president praised the international community, saying after many years of failure countries are finally coming together to face Pyongyang.
On the country’s state run news network, North Korea threatened to take physical action against any countries opposing it.
The regime shows no signs of backing down, despite world condemnation.
House GOP Unveils Website Blasting Mainstream Media Coverage
U.S. President Donald Trump holds a meeting with House Republicans at the White House in Washington, U.S. February 16, 2017. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque) |
The website called “Did You Know” says the news has not been keeping Americans informed on all the legislation GOP lawmakers have passed in the House.
It went live on Monday, and includes both a video and a written list of all of their achievements.
There’s also a quiz where visitors can answer questions comparing how well they know news reported by mainstream media compared to GOP events and laws.
This comes after the first 200 days of Trump’s presidency was overshadowed by Russian “collusion” and unwavering investigations, which the president referred to as the “single greatest witch hunt of a politician” in U.S. history.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Sessions: Sanctuary city Chicago's hostility to law-enforcement protection 'astounding'
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
fired back Monday at the lawsuit filed by the city of Chicago over the
Justice Department’s threat to withhold federal money from so-called
sanctuary cities, saying “no amount” of money will help a city that
won’t help its own residents.
“This administration is committed
to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To
a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political
leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt
a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system,”
Sessions said in a statement.
The city filed its suit over the Justice Department's
threat to withhold Byrne grants for law enforcement groups from
sanctuary cities. The city’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, likened this to
“blackmail.”“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city,” Emanuel said. “The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety, not concocting new schemes to reduce our crime-fighting resources.”
Sessions said the city of Chicago has chosen to protect “criminal aliens who prey on their own residents” instead of enforcing laws meant to protect law enforcement.
The attorney general called the “open hostility” against protecting law enforcement -- while protecting criminal aliens -- “astounding” given the influx of Chicago’s violence crime.
“The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve,” Sessions continued.
The grants, named for former New York City police officer Edward Byrne, who was murdered in 1988, would provide $3.2 million to Chicago, to be used for police vehicles. Funding from the grant is a small fraction of the city's budget.
A requirement added to the grants would force local jurisdictions to report to federal officials of the release of illegal immigrants from police custody at least 48 hours in advance, which Emanuel said would violate citizens’ “fundamental rights.”
CRIME-RIDDEN CHICAGO SUES DOJ OVER SANCTUARY CITIES
Emanuel “complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago,’” Sessions said. “But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city.”
“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel said. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”
DOJ THREATENS TO WITHHOLD CRIME-FIGHTS FUNDS FROM FOUR SANCTUARY CITIES
Emanual said he did not think Chicago would be the last sanctuary city to file a lawsuit of this nature. Other cities the DOJ contacted about withholding funds of this nature include Baltimore, Albuquerque, N.M., and Stockton and San Bernardino, Calif.
“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety,” Sessions concluded. “So it’s this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars.”
Democrats divided over whether party should welcome pro-life candidates
Paul Spencer is the kind of candidate that Democrats need if they hope to retake the House in 2018.
He's lived in Arkansas's 2nd
District for 18 years. He dislikes big money in politics. In a
congressional campaign ad, he touts how, "I'm a teacher and a farmer,
and I know firsthand the struggles that so many of our working people
face."
There’s just one problem: Spencer is pro-life. It’s a
belief that has him hovering dangerously over a widening chasm in his
party.Last week, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan provoked the ire of many progressives when he urged the Democrats to court pro-life candidates if they are to have any hope of retaking the 24 House seats they need for a majority.
PROGRESSIVES CLASH WITH WASHINGTON DEMS OVER CANDIDATES' ABORTION STANCE
"There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates," Lujan told The Hill.
His plea met with an instant rebuke from progressives. Fourteen groups – from the National Abortion Rights Action League to Move-On Political Action to Emily's List to The Daily Kos – issued a Statement of Principles which read, in part: "policies that limit access to abortion and force medically unnecessary procedures are oppressive to women, especially low-income women and women of color."
"The problem is they have this ideological purity at the top where you can't oppose any abortion at any time along the continuum," says Marjorie Dannenfelser of the conservative Susan B Anthony List. "At the same time, a third of Democrats identity as pro-life according to Gallup."
Some say opposing all pro-life candidates will not help the Democrats.
HUCKABEE: DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME THE PARTY OF PRO-ABORTION
"Their strategy is hurting the party," says Kristen Day of Democrats for Life of America. "Being told I don't belong in the Democratic Party. You can't be a Democrat if you’re pro-life, and I can't be pro-life cause I'm a Democrat."
Spencer, the House candidate, is trying to circumvent the divide.
"I’ve already informed the Democratic Party here in Little Rock that I don't want to receive any of their money," he said. "I welcome their support and their advice but I don't wish for their money. And the DCCC, in Washington, I've already had that discussion with them as well."
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is trying to straddle the line. A new program, called "A Better Deal," avoids any mention of abortion rights.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: WOMEN SHOULD FORM THEIR OWN PARTY IF DEMOCRATS DON'T DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS
And while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared to welcome pro-life candidates in a May interview with the Washington Post, last week she retreated to a familiar position.
"I respect a woman's right to choose," she told reporters at her weekly press conference.
The rift may be widening. After Lujan's call to welcome pro-life candidates into the Democratic fold, actress and party activist, Rose O’Donnell tweeted: "Women should form their own party if Dems do this."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...