Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

SEVEN FATEFUL CORONAVIRUS DECISIONS

Thursday, April 23rd, 2020

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Seven Fateful Coronavirus Decisions

President Trump acted with dispatch, to keep Americans safe, even when it was unpopular.

By Robert C. O’Brien    Robert O’Brien is White House national security adviser
April 21, 2020

Facing a once-in-a-century pandemic, a crisis that some have likened to a world war, the U.S. is fortunate to have President Trump in charge. I have witnessed him make the tough decisions necessary at every turn to keep America safe. Seven of these decisions stand out.

First, the president assembled a team. On Jan. 29 he established the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Now under Vice President Mike Pence’s leadership, the task force has consolidated the government’s public-health expertise and responded in real time to the virus’s spread. Deborah Birx, a world-renowned physician, was detailed on March 2 from the State Department to serve as the coronavirus response coordinator, joining Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who were already in the fight.

Second, on Jan. 31 Mr. Trump ordered travel restrictions barring foreign nationals who had recently been in China from entering the U.S., quarantines for Americans who had visited China’s Hubei province, and a strong advisory against Americans traveling to China. These moves bought time to prepare for the large-scale arrival of the virus on U.S. shores, but they weren’t popular at the time.

The next day, on Feb. 1, Joe Biden criticized the president’s “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering.” He stressed that “diseases have no borders.” It took until April 3 for Mr. Biden to do a 180 and come out in support of the president’s travel restrictions. The Washington Post editorial board condemned the restrictions on Feb. 5, positing that “Mr. Trump’s goal is to shut off the spigot of plucky, hopeful and ambitious people who aspire to become Americans.”

Third, on March 11 Mr. Trump suspended travel to the U.S. for foreign nationals who had recently been in 26 European nations, despite considerable pressure to exempt allies. The president extended these restrictions on March 14 to travel from the U.K. and Ireland, two of America’s closest partners. This was, again, a difficult and controversial call at the time, given our countries’ unique and longstanding ties.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – BILL MAHER ON THE CORONA VIRUS

Tuesday, April 14th, 2020

 

VIDEO – BILL MAHER ON THE CORONA VIRUS 
Even a broken clock is right twice a day !
 
Even though he is a leftist on most issues, Bill Maher is right about the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) Virus or Wuhan Virus in this video.  Despite a few expletives, he sums this up better than most conservatives.
 
Another thing he has been right about is the left’s ignorance of the dangers of Islam and the world-wide Jihad.
Share

THE AGONY OF THE DEMOCRATS

Saturday, February 15th, 2020

 

Far Left Liberalism has itself to blame for  being the cause of the appeal of Bernie Sanders.  The Democrat Party now has to contend with the possibility of Bernie being their nominee.  Guess they really didn’t mean for the voters to take their extreme far left policies seriously !   Nancy  

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Agony of the Democrats

Bernie Sanders is riding the intellectual currents that the party and its elites have nurtured.

By the Editorial Board   February 15, 2020

Bernie Sanders’s victory in New Hampshire on top of his tie in Iowa makes him a favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination. Hard to believe, but in a winnable race against President Trump the opposition may nominate a socialist who wants the government to control energy production and health care, who wants nationwide rent control, and who calls America a “racist society from top to bottom.” No wonder Democrats like James Carville are in agony.

The Vermont revolutionary’s victory portends a long primary battle, unless Democratic voters elevate a single mainstream candidate who can challenge him. Mr. Sanders will get his 25% to 30% primary after primary, racking up delegates on his way to the convention. If other candidates keep dividing the other votes, he will be hard to stop, as Mr. Trump was for Republicans in 2016. Even if a single alternative emerges, Mr. Sanders won’t go down without a ferocious intra-party fight.

***

How did this happen? How did Mr. Sanders move from the socialist fringe to the brink of controlling the Democratic Party? The Senator’s dogged persistence across decades and especially the last four years is part of the explanation.

Yet Mr. Sanders wouldn’t be this close to the White House if not for the complicity of Democrats and the liberals who dominate the academy and media. Rather than fighting the ideas that animate him and his millennial voters, they have indulged and promoted them. They created the political environment in which he could prosper. Consider the intellectual currents he is riding:

(more…)

Share

2 VIDEOS MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBUNKED

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

 

VIDEO  PETER TEMPLE  CLIMATE CHANGE

VIDEO AND ARTICLE – NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY SAYS 500 EXPERTS IN A LETTER TO THE U.N.
Share

5 MINUTE VIDEO – PRAGER U THE GREEN NEW DEAL

Tuesday, July 30th, 2019

 

5 MINUTE VIDEO – PRAGER U

What’s the Deal with the Green New Deal?
There’s been a lot of talk about The Green New Deal. Beyond the headlines, what is it really? Given our energy needs, is it practical? Can we have an abundance of energy and a clean planet? Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, considers these questions and has thought-provoking answers.
Share

DIVERSITY DELUSIONS AT NORTH CAROLINA

Monday, February 11th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Diversity Delusions at North Carolina

Like Harvard, the school has trouble defending an admissions policy that ill-serves minority students.

Feb. 11, 2019

The University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill, N.C.
The University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill, N.C. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

Harvard isn’t the only university defending its discriminatory admissions policies in court. Its nonprofit adversary, Students for Fair Admissions, filed a similar complaint against the University of North Carolina in 2014. UNC’s initial defense, submitted last month, is a case study in the willful ignorance underlying the racial-preference regime in higher education. Above all, schools like Harvard and UNC have deliberately ignored the negative effects of preferences on their supposed beneficiaries.

UNC told the court it needs to employ racial double standards in admissions because “certain classes, fields, or areas of campus” lack black and Hispanic students. Though UNC didn’t elaborate, the subjects deficient in underrepresented minorities undoubtedly include science, technology, engineering and math—the so-called STEM fields.

UNC has it backward: Racial preferences aren’t the solution to black and Hispanic underrepresentation in STEM, they are a cause of it. Admitting students with academic qualifications significantly below those of their peers puts them at a disadvantage, whatever their race. Students who are catapulted by preferences into schools for which they are academically mismatched struggle to keep up in classrooms where the teaching is pitched above their level of preparation. Studies have shown that African-American and Hispanic freshmen in preference-practicing schools who intend to major in STEM switch into softer majors at a high rate once they realize their fellow students are much better prepared to do the work. Had those students enrolled in schools that matched their level of preparation, they would be more likely to graduate with a STEM degree.

(more…)

Share

EMP – OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROTECTED US

Monday, September 25th, 2017

 

With the threat from North Korea in the news on a daily basis, their high altitude missile  launches are a perfect vehicle to attack the U.S. with an EMP(electro magnetic pulse) strike.   The links below explain why  an EMP  strike would be devastating  to our country with massive loss of life if our electrical grid  is damaged.    First to die would be those with pacemakers and other electronic life saving devices, then those whose medicines need to be refrigerated, hospitals will be affected, you won’t be able to communicate with your loved ones  then because transportation  will be at a standstill, grocery stores will run out of food and that is when people become desperate and society starts to break down.    
The last link is from Dick Morris who explains how ineffective our government has been in hardening our electrical grid that would protect us from an EMP.   Is it going to take an national catastrophe before our government acts?   Nancy      
VIDEO  AND ARTICLE –

EMP:  Technology’s Worst Nightmare

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a super-energetic radio wave that can destroy, damage, or cause the malfunction of electronic systems by overloading their circuits.  Harmless to people but catastrophic to our critical infrastructure critical infrastructures–electric power, telecommunications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water–that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 326 million Americans.

Given the current state of U.S. unpreparedness for an EMP event, it is estimated that within 12 months of an EMP event, two-thirds to 90 percent of the U.S. population would likely perish from starvation, disease, and societal breakdown.

WHEN, not if…

  VIDEO

NatGeo – Electronic Armageddon

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9z4EnE9baU 

Listen to Dick Morris explain that  through the inaction of our government, we are very vulnerable to an EMP strike 

Dick Morris video –  Commission On EMP, Which Can Destroy America, Will Expire On September 30TH 

Share

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ” WE WERE WRONG ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING”

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

 

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C –  concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

(more…)

Share

REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE SHOWS TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO EXIT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT

Monday, July 10th, 2017

 

REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris


If you don’t have time to read it, please read this much…

The Paris treaty is not about climate change 

In actual intent and practice, the Paris Agreement is a political tool for suppressing growth, instituting global governance over energy use and economic growth, and redistributing wealth.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, clearly spelled out that aim. Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated that it was not about climate but that, for the first time, it gave them the tools to replace capitalism. Former UNFCCC section director Ottmar Edenhofer bluntly said climate agreements are actually about how “we de facto redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Under the Paris accords, developed nation payments to the “Green Climate Fund” (for redistribution to underdeveloped countries) are to begin at $100 billion per year, of which the US share would have been $23.5 billion had President Trump not taken the United States out of the agreement. Ms. Figueres has suggested that $450 billion a year by 2030 would be appropriate, Competitive Enterprise Institute climate expert Myron Ebell notes.

Concerning the transition away from fossil fuels, during its October 7-9, 2016 annual group meeting, the IMF and World Bank declared: “One estimate suggests that around US $90 trillion will need to be invested by 2030 in infrastructure, agriculture and energy systems, to accomplish the Paris Agreement. …[S]et against the US $300 trillion of assets – held by banks, capital markets and institutional investors – we’re faced with a problem of allocation, rather than outright scarcity.”

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Yes, the climate change gurus are now openly
admitting it’s not about global warming/climate change.
It’s about squeezing us for money to create their
world government. “Us” means developed countries…
especially the U.S. It didn’t work.
Liberals are incensed that Donald Trump refused to
cave in to this scam. Eyeballs squirting blood…
heads exploding… sleepless nights… some may
have to start looking for jobs. Their scam is dying.
No surprise the  MIT president is upset. MIT routinely
gets money for grants to “study climate change”.
Take that money away and they will have to start
driving another scam.
Share

STUDY FINDS TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS ACCOUNT FOR ‘NEARLY ALL OF THE WARMING IN CLIMATE DATA’

Monday, July 10th, 2017

 

THE DAILY CALLER

EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The

 WARMING IN CLIMATE DATA’

July 5, 2017

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a studypublished June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

PLEASE CLINK ON THE LINK ABOVE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
Share
Search All Posts
Categories