Not just oversea. Anything. Any names.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-obama-campaign-disables-credit-card-verification-accepts-donation-from-nidal-hasan

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend



The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

It took a while for that thread but you finally nailed it...

 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/18/1461437/-DNC-suspends-Sanders-campaign-s-voter-file-access-after-data-breach


-----------------------------------------------
Time for the bernies to vote for clinton, your queen bee...

If somebody has to belong to a country or a group before having to voice their stupid or smart opinion, it would break the internet. Ask the prince.

 

You Can't Stump the Trump Volume 9


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EajmIe1p35o&feature=youtu.be


Those videos are so cool!

After COP21 Failure The Terror Begins: Crazed Greenies Eat Their Own






The Paris COP21 climate summit has gone better than any of us could have hoped. Which is to say so incredibly badly that the disappointed greenies have begun to turn on one another in bitterness and recrimination and Hunger-Games-like kill-or-be-killed savagery.

Consider this offering from Harvard History of Science Professor Naomi Oreskes in the Guardian in which, bizarrely, she calls out of some of the green movement’s most fanatically green activists for not being green enough.

Better still, she actually uses the worst insult of all in the greenie lexicon: “deniers.”

    After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

    But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

    Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power….

Who are these terrible New Denialists?

    New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club:  James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.

And what is the terrible error of judgement which has provoked the righteous wrath of Oreskes?

Basically they have rejected one of the green movement’s most sacred shibboleths: they have come out in favour of nuclear power.

Nuclear, these green heretics believe, is the only way that the planet can reduce its CO2 emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Oreskes disagrees. She thinks it can be done with wind and solar and geothermal. Just like energy expert Mark Ruffalo.

To put Oreskes and Ruffalo’s expert opinion in perspective, let’s just remind ourselves of the current share of wind, solar and geothermal in the global energy market.



Hmm. Don’t give up the day job, Mark; do give up the day job, Naomi.

In case you need reminding who Naomi Oreskes is, she’s the embarrassingly overpromoted academic who says that a handful of contrarian, “denier” scientists in the pay of Big Oil are skewing the debate on global warming by deliberately misrepresenting the science, just like they did with tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

This is what’s so glorious about Oreskes’ Guardian assault on people like James “Death Trains” Hansen (the activist at NASA who invented the global warming scare), Kerry Emanuel (a leading alarmist) and Tom Wigley (featured heavily in the Climategate emails).

It’s like Rosa Klebb calling out Oddjob, Jaws and Blofeld for being just too lightweight in their pursuit of evil and world domination.

In other words, popcorn time.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/cop21-failure-terror-begins-crazed-greenies-eat/

It is so hard to find talented, absolute chess players...

 

Achtung!!!!!  Define what you mean by free speech! SCHNELL!!!!!


No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVZa9_Ha5c

You have a 100% trust in your non American politicians? What a blessing.


 

Saudi Arabia orders execution of teenager
SAUDI Arabia is to behead a teenager for attending a protest when he was 15.




Abdullah ah-Zaher became the youngest person given the death sentence, according to campaigners Reprieve.

Campaigners claim Abdullah ah-Zaher, who attended the protest four years ago was put on death row as part of a crackdown on political dissent.

The 19-year-old has been moved to solitary confinement and could be beheaded at any moment.

Despite possible repercussions, his family have gone public with his story, in a final bid to save his life.

His father Hassan al-Zaher said: “Please help me save my son from the imminent threat of death. He doesn’t deserve to die just because he participated in a protest rally.”






    Please help me save my son from the imminent threat of death. He doesn’t deserve to die just because he participated in a protest rally

    Abdullah's father

According to the campaign group, Reprieve, Abdullah was arrested for being in the area of a protest in March 2012, beaten by police and tortured.

He was then allegedly forced to sign papers police fabricated.

Saudi media reports suggest 52 prisoners will be executed at any time.

Abdullah was held alongside Ali al-Nimr, who has been sentenced to a death penalty for allegedly instigating a revolution using his Blackberry.

A Reprieve spokeswoman said: “What we know from the families of the three is that they are in solitary confinement and being prepared for execution.

“They have been moved and undergone medical examinations, which seem to suggest their beheading is imminent.

The whole business of executions in Saudi Arabia is shrouded in secrecy, and prisoners are often beheaded without any notice to family or lawyers.”

His father has said his health is deteriorating and when he attended this protest at the age of 15, he wasn’t even fully aware what they were protesting for.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/627602/Saudi-Arabia-orders-execution-teenager




----------------------------------------
I shall never forgive, forget, pardon, or overlook a family of beheaders just because I am addicted to their oil... But that's just me.

"But it doesn't change the fact that we should take the worst possibility (this means the high CO2 sensitivity) and act upon this base, until the contrary is proven".

Why?
Is the "base" solid when lots and lots of scientists have been shut out trying to do just their job? That is the main point of this thread: every single advance in science has been met with a very strong dose of skepticism, until they were proving right. Why should global warming be treated any differently?

[...]
There are actually a couple of different, jaw dropping items in this story which seem mystifying even in comparison to the normal comings and goings in the morass of the federal government. From the strictly good government side of the equation, NOAA is a public entity which is primarily funded by the taxpayers. (And they’ve been caught playing fast and loose with your cash on more than one occasion.) The idea that Congress doesn’t have complete authority to engage in oversight of their work should be offensive to everyone in the country.

But on a far more basic level, we’re talking about the scientific process here. Since when is the process for critically examining data and arriving at substantive conclusions some sort of clandestine, secret process? We’re not talking about an agency that’s guarding sensitive national security secrets. This is allegedly science. The entire concept of solid research involves extensive peer reviews where other experts can put your theories and conclusions to the test and see if they can either replicate or repudiate your results. What do these scientists have to hide from the public even if they weren’t being funded on the taxpayer’s dime?

This refusal is a breach of trust with the public. Personally, I think that Congress needs to do a lot more than drag Sullivan out on the floor to demand answers… she needs to be fired. This is an abuse of her office and further diminishes any sense of trust the public should have in her work.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/11/scientists-cheering-for-noaa-chief-to-not-be-bullied-into-showing-their-work-on-climate-data/


Is this science?

 

Famed investor Buffett to give stamp of approval to Clinton


 OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- Like many Americans, Warren Buffett can write a $2,700 check to support his favorite presidential candidate. But as one of the wealthiest Americans, he can also unleash immense financial clout by giving untold millions to super PACs supporting his preferred contender in the race.

When the billionaire joins a rally Wednesday with Hillary Clinton in Omaha, Nebraska, a question humming in the background will be whether Buffett, one of the world's premier investors, will throw more of his fortune behind her candidacy than he's been comfortable spending in politics in the past.

In either case, his public appearance with Clinton is aimed at offering his stamp of approval to the Democrat's economic message of inclusive capitalism and toughness against Wall Street excess. He will also join Clinton at a private fundraiser.

With Buffett by her side, Clinton planned to offer her support for the so-called "Buffett rule" pushed by the Obama administration, which has sought higher taxes on the wealthy, but would say the next administration must go even further to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, said a Clinton aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to preview her remarks. The aide said Clinton would announce more steps next year to build upon the Buffett rule and ensure the effective tax rate paid by millionaires reflects a fair tax system.

The "Oracle of Omaha" has referred to Clinton as a "hero of mine" and predicted last year that she would succeed President Barack Obama, whom he also supported.

"I will bet money on it," he said. "And I don't do that easily."

Democrats say Buffett carries a rare dual appeal on Wall Street and Main Street. The investment guru's annual shareholder meeting is dubbed "Woodstock for Capitalists" and drew an overflow crowd of more than 40,000 people from around the globe in the spring.

"What he brings to the table is that he's one of the few highly respected business people who average people view as one of them," said Marc Lasry, a New York hedge fund manager and Democratic donor. "He's liked by lots of different kinds of people."

Buffett supported Clinton's first Senate campaign in 2000, raised money for her presidential campaign in 2008 and later endorsed Obama and appeared at fundraisers for the president.

A donor can contribute up to $2,700 to a candidate during the primaries and again during the general election. But more can be given to candidate-friendly groups and, among those organizations, super political action committees can accept unlimited donations.

Buffett has voiced his displeasure with the growth of unlimited money in politics and the emergence of the super PACS. But he made his first donation to a super PAC last year, giving $25,000 to the pro-Clinton Ready for Hillary group, raising hopes among some Democrats that he might open his wallet again and in an even bigger way.

Clinton's campaign said the two plan to discuss their "shared belief that we need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, and their shared commitment to tax reforms that ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."

Left unsaid is what Buffett might do in the months ahead, as a big-dollar fundraiser, a presence with Clinton on the trail, or both.

In her primary campaign against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton has pushed back against concerns among some liberals that her time in the Senate representing New York left her too close to Wall Street bankers. She said she's talked about Wall Street excess for years, and has vowed to seek criminal penalties for bankers who break the rules.

Clinton has said she will not raise taxes on married couples making more than $250,000 a year and has advocated higher taxes on the wealthy, recalling Obama's push for the "Buffett rule" during the 2012 election. The rule was named for the frugal billionaire, who favors higher taxes for the rich, and involves tax increases on those making more than $1 million a year.

Buffett "has tremendous credibility in the left and really reassures the left about her economic orientation," said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster.

Buffett also offers a "perfect juxtaposition" to Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Lake said, noting Trump's attempt to cast himself as an economic wizard with a common touch, offering helicopter rides at the Iowa State Fair last summer, for example. In Buffett, Lake said, Clinton has a "perfect validator" who has made enormous wealth but doesn't forget about those with less.

And then there's the money. At age 85, Buffett has a net worth of more than $60 billion, according to Forbes, and has said he does not support super PACs. But his check to Ready for Hillary raised questions about whether he might make an exception to his longstanding unease with unlimited money in politics.

Democrats, facing the potential of hundreds of millions of dollars from prominent Republicans and conservatives such as the Koch Brothers, would welcome the help for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that raised more than $15 million during the first six months of the year, a small fraction of what Republican-backed super PACs have generated. The Democratic super PAC expects to be the chief outside group supporting Clinton.

Buffett said after donating $25,000 to the pro-Clinton group that he didn't realize it was a super PAC and suggested that he would limit his advocacy to more traditional fundraising.

"I support her," he told CNN in April. "I would not write a huge check. I would go out and raise money for her. I'd be delighted to do that. I would hope to do it."

He said: "I did some of that in 2008 but I just don't believe that the election should be decided by the super-rich."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_BUFFETT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-16-03-51-41


-----------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street has chosen clinton... Not Trump.

The two largest social networks, Facebook and Twitter, and the world’s largest search engine, Google, have teamed up with German law enforcement to delete “hate speech” within 24 hours in what is being seen as a last-ditch effort to silence public dissent about a gigantic wave of Syrian immigration.

The partnership to crack down on what Germany deems illegal speech comes after German law enforcement’s reported concerns about “racist abuse” posted to social media after the country’s huge and extremely controversial import of over a million Syrian refugees.

Justice Minister Heiko Maas is reported to have warned social networks that they must not become “a funfair for the far-right” and that “the benchmark to be applied will be German law and no longer just the terms of use of each network.”

Specialist teams will be used to track down, examine, and remove offending posts, and the process is not to take more than 24 hours.

After World War Two, all Nazi-related imagery and material was made illegal irrespective of context in Germany. All Nazi-related swastikas and salutes were replaced in the Wolfenstein video game remake, owing to this law.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/15/facebook-twitter-google-collude-with-german-government-to-censor-discussion-on-immigration/

Nation That Crucifies Children For Being Warlocks And Heretics To Lead Moral Crusade Against ISIS…


A new Saudi-led Islamic alliance to fight terrorism will share information and train, equip and provide forces if necessary for the fight against Islamic State militants, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia announced earlier on Tuesday the formation of a 34-nation Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, a move welcomed by the United States which has been urging a greater regional involvement in the campaign against the militants who control swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.

“Nothing is off the table,” al-Jubeir said when asked whether the initiative could include troops on the ground.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-idUSKBN0TX2PG20151215

He is doing what comes naturally to him: paying politicians, tossing little people around when bored.

That shows the true face of the clintons...

 
ABC: US deliberately ignoring social-media posts in visa vetting


Want to guess why five government agencies missed Tashfeen Malik’s social-media postings that declared her intent to conduct violent jihad on behalf of radical Islam? It turns out that they didn’t miss it at all. The Department of Homeland Security has a deliberate policy of not checking social media when vetting visa applications, ABC News reported this morning.

Want to guess why that policy exists? Again, three guesses and the first two don’t count:

    Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said.

    “During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

    One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen’s account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

While ABC names Johnson as the man who perpetuated this policy, it didn’t start with him, and Malik came in before this decision. The policy in place at that time would have been set by Janet Napolitano, who should not escape scrutiny for this nonsensical approach to national security. This failure might come as a big surprise to Congress, members of which have already begun to ask to expand vetting to social media after the terror attack in San Bernardino:

    Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded Sunday that the U.S. immediately initiate a program that would check the social media sites of those admitted on visas.”

    “Had they checked out Tashfeen Malik,” the senator said, “maybe those people in San Bernardino would be alive.”

Maybe so, but then DHS might have experienced “bad public relations.” When people say that political correctness kills, this is exactly the kind of consequence they mean.

The notion that this would be a civil-liberties issue is equally absurd. The Constitution does not cover visa applications from foreigners; there is no right to a visa. Furthermore, social media statements are public in nature, not private, so reading them and considering them in terms of security concerns for entry into the US has no civil-liberties involvement either. Public declarations of support for jihad should be not just acceptable criteria for vetting, it should be a no-brainer as an automatic denial of the visa application in an age of global Islamist terrorism.

This demonstrates a shocking lack of seriousness about the war on terror by the Obama administration, albeit part of an overall pattern. They are literally more concerned about public relations than security in the visa application process, according to ABC’s report. It comes as Barack Obama and the Democrats have attempted to change the subject to gun control in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, and to climate change when it comes to the spread of ISIS. This administration clearly has its own priorities, and getting serious about national security ranks lower than their need to engage in political correctness.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/14/abc-us-deliberately-ignoring-social-media-posts-in-visa-vetting/

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Political correctness kills. 14 victims as proof.

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/675860410172637184