Climbing the pyramid from the left or right side.

Yes. Liberals are my favorite target. But also YES "conservatives" could also evolve, as the end result is ultimate power for whoever is in charge on top.


Remember who supports freedom of speech and who does not.

As a part of its ‘body integration’ campaign, the payment service is working on an ingestible pill that would preserve your password in the slimiest of vessels: your stomach.
PayPal wants to get to know you. Really well. Really really well.

They know how much you hate having to remember all your different passwords. So, to ease your burden, they have a new device. It’s simple really, simpler even than clicking a few times to have PayPal move money from your bank account to that guy selling the weird lamp you don’t need but accidentally bid on during an eBay excursion.

For those who have classic garden-variety paranoia: you’d be advised to stop here. But for those insensate to the stirrings of good old American paranoia, or who are prescribed large doses of mood flatteners, read on!

PayPal plans to put a teensy weensy little microchip into a pill; a pill you swallow every now and again; one where the microchip is sort of like an electronic key that you swipe. Rather than swiping here is what happens: Every time you are near a computer and get the itch to buy something, your pals at PayPal won’t ask you to remember your password. No more random combinations of dogs’ names or old girl friends’ names or mixes of the two.

Instead of using your noodle, PayPal will get the signal from that cute little pill you swallowed and log you on with no muss or fuss. From your ingested microchip, onto the Internet, and you don’t have to even remember your own name!

This is part of PayPal’s goal of “true integration with the human body”—a goal I hadn’t realized they valued much. I mean, we pay them when we need to—but do we really have to integrate them into our own bodies? Apparently so: like birth control, per PayPal’s Jonathan Leblanc, the “next wave of passwords will be edible, ingestible or injectable”
And the information being sent is not the dog-and-girlfriend variety at all—that is, guessable by someone with a creative mind and a lot of time. You can be (and probably have been) hacked. Not in this brave new world. Your “log-on” will be biometric—something that says you and just you! Like your heartbeat or your veins or maybe the may your blood sugar rises and falls during the day. Something unique that your ingested microchip can beam across to that laptop opened to the irresistible sport coat marked down to $79 while they last.

To which I say—good luck, kids.

Have you ever looked inside someone’s stomach? It’s scary in there—enough acid to denature a raw egg, thick folds of stomach lining, gooey mucus, old food and new, a penny you swallowed in a nervous fit as well as the microscopic milieu of bacteria and glands and dying stomach cells killed by the very acid made by the next cell over. You want to put a microchip in THAT and try to get anything intelligible?

Much less the issues like what happens when you eat a really greasy meal and the signals are blunted in the butter sauce. Or what about getting a pacemaker or an MRI scan—or for that matter walking merrily through a TSA body scanner. Maybe your unique biometric identifier will be changed, maybe it won’t— but what can you do? It’s in your stomach somewhere.

I will leave aside the evacuation aspect of the problem—like if you “pass” your microchip, how will you know it? Perhaps toilets could be equipped with additional sensors that monitor the passage of equipment. This update could then be relayed to a nearby PayPal body integration specialist who would appear at your doorway with a new micro-chipped pill—and a comment about your blood pressure and over all state of mind.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/05/paypal-wants-to-make-your-body-a-password.html

Remember who supports freedom of speech and who does not.

Note: Hate speech, not hate crimes. YouGov asked people about hate crimes for its poll too and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin. Sixty-four percent of Dems gave thumbs-up to that versus 54 percent of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans also support expanding that law to target hate crimes committed against gays: 44 percent say yes versus 30 percent who say no.

Hate-crimes laws matter in the sentencing phase. If you’re guilty of the underlying offense, then you can be punished more severely depending upon what your motive was. A hate-speech law is different in that it treats hate as the offense itself. All you have to do is verbalize your thoughtcrime against a protected group and you’re facing prison. Our intellectual superiors in Europe cherish their hate-speech laws but the First Amendment makes them anathema in the U.S.


Independents and Republicans are heavily opposed (although, alarmingly, not quite to a majority degree among GOPers) but Democrats and liberals — proud guardians of the free-speech movement in the 1960s — are ready to censor. The best spin I can put on this for lefties is that YouGov’s question asked if they’d support a law that criminalizes comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a particular group. Could be that some people who said yes focused on the first part of that, genocide, rather than the second and figured that “advocating genocide” is close enough to making a credible violent threat against a person that it can and should be made illegal too. It can’t (unless you’re doing your advocating in front of a mob that’s whipped up and ready to attack someone), but a question asking exclusively about “hatred” would have been better. An interesting footnote to all this: Given America’s history of racism against blacks, you would think they might support hate-speech laws more than any other group. They do support those laws more than whites (44/34 in favor among blacks versus 32/43 opposition among whites) but not as much as Latinos do. Latinos favor them 49/20, a wider gap in support than you find even among self-identified liberals. On the other hand, the left-leaning 18-34 group doesn’t support hate-speech laws much more than any other age demographic does. They break 38/37. Seniors breaks 35/39.


Support across the board. This is another question that could have benefited from better wording, though: “Desecration” could mean anything from aggressive vandalism, like smashing a religious statue or graffiting a church’s walls, to mockery that doesn’t involve property crimes. (I.e. a difference similar to the difference between hate crimes and hate speech.) The question was inspired by the case in Pennsylvania where a 14-year-old went up to a statue of Jesus and — well, see for yourself. Jonathan Turley has the photo. When YouGov asked whether that kid should spend up to two years in jail for that specific act of desecration, respondents split 36/47 against. Among Republicans, it was 40/46. Among Democrats, it was … 44/38. That’s appalling but it makes sense given their response to the hate-speech question. If you want to criminalize offensive expression, as many liberals seem inclined to do, why not hit the 14-year-old with prison time for insulting Jesus? Coming soon, presumably: Blasphemy laws.



http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/02/poll-51-of-democrats-support-criminalizing-hate-speech/

The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans’ treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when – if ever – government should intervene.

There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. …

Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, “fighting words can contradict the basic values that underlie freedom of speech,” Szmer said. “The views being expressed at the conference could be seen as social commentary. Political and social speech should be protected. You are arguably talking about social commentary.”

It’s unlikely that the issue will be tested in the Garland case, however, because prosecutors in Texas almost certainly won’t press charges against the conference organizers, he said.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/04/265537/after-texas-shooting-if-free-speech.html

**********************************************


Unusually Stupid McClatchy Column Gets Free Speech Wrong


They begin by pointing out that the organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit arranged for extra security, suggesting that because they contemplated the risk of violence that they should not have spoken. But how is that a just or relevant standard? Would Wise and Landay approach Russian gay rights protestors and tell them to shut up because they could predict a bloody, brutal response from thugs? Would they rebuke the organizers of May Day marches, which seem reliably to produce violence by some bad actors?

http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/unusually-stupid-mcclatchy-column-gets-free-speech-wrong/

Do you believe people hate islam?


 

To me anyway.

Most people realize that emails and other digital communications they once considered private can now become part of their permanent record.

But even as they increasingly use apps that understand what they say, most people don’t realize that the words they speak are not so private anymore, either.

Top-secret documents from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show the National Security Agency can now automatically recognize the content within phone calls by creating rough transcripts and phonetic representations that can be easily searched and stored.

The documents show NSA analysts celebrating the development of what they called “Google for Voice” nearly a decade ago.

Though perfect transcription of natural conversation apparently remains the Intelligence Community’s “holy grail,” the Snowden documents describe extensive use of keyword searching as well as computer programs designed to analyze and “extract” the content of voice conversations, and even use sophisticated algorithms to flag conversations of interest.

The documents include vivid examples of the use of speech recognition in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Latin America. But they leave unclear exactly how widely the spy agency uses this ability, particularly in programs that pick up considerable amounts of conversations that include people who live in or are citizens of the United States.

Spying on international telephone calls has always been a staple of NSA surveillance, but the requirement that an actual person do the listening meant it was effectively limited to a tiny percentage of the total traffic. By leveraging advances in automated speech recognition, the NSA has entered the era of bulk listening.

And this has happened with no apparent public oversight, hearings or legislative action. Congress hasn’t shown signs of even knowing that it’s going on.

The USA Freedom Act — the surveillance reform bill that Congress is currently debating — doesn’t address the topic at all. The bill would end an NSA program that does not collect voice content: the government’s bulk collection of domestic calling data, showing who called who and for how long.

Even if becomes law, the bill would leave in place a multitude of mechanisms exposed by Snowden that scoop up vast amounts of innocent people’s text and voice communications in the U.S. and across the globe.

Civil liberty experts contacted by The Intercept said the NSA’s speech-to-text capabilities are a disturbing example of the privacy invasions that are becoming possible as our analog world transitions to a digital one.

“I think people don’t understand that the economics of surveillance have totally changed,” Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, told The Intercept.

“Once you have this capability, then the question is: How will it be deployed? Can you temporarily cache all American phone calls, transcribe all the phone calls, and do text searching of the content of the calls?” she said. “It may not be what they are doing right now, but they’ll be able to do it.”

And, she asked: “How would we ever know if they change the policy?”

Indeed, NSA officials have been secretive about their ability to convert speech to text, and how widely they use it, leaving open any number of possibilities.

That secrecy is the key, Granick said. “We don’t have any idea how many innocent people are being affected, or how many of those innocent people are also Americans.”


https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-recognition-snowden-searchable-text/

Garland: A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare



This past Sunday, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its president, Pamela Geller, held a Muhammad art exhibit in a Garland, Texas community center. Two radical Islamists — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — drove up to the entrance, got out of their car, and started shooting, wounding a security guard before a Garland Police officer shot and killed them both. This is a terrible story for obvious reasons. In many ways, it’s an even worse story for liberals. Here are just a few examples of why.

The First Amendment: From efforts to stifle debates and cancel “American Sniper” on college campuses, to calling “thug” the new n-word, liberals are constantly trying to shut down and/or chill free speech. Every day, more words and ideas are offensive to them and, therefore, cannot be used. Cartoons and drawings of Muhammad are a grave insult to Muslims, so liberals feel that they should not be shown. Whereas many of us feel that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, even inflammatory speech, people like New York Times writer Rukmini Callimachi, take a very different view:




After “Free speech aside,” the rest of her tweet is meaningless.

The Second Amendment: The vast majority of liberals do not like guns and would prefer more stringent gun control. Many would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms altogether. In “Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris,” Breitbart News writer AWR Hawkins wrote:

There was no prolonged, two-day pursuit of attackers, nor were there unarmed police officers dodging bullets on their bicycles. But there were plenty of guns in the hands of good guys who were keeping watch over the cartoon contest and who were charged with stopping any bad guys with guns who might show up.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne Lapierre famously said “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” (Full disclosure: I work for NRA News). He was excoriated by the Left at the time, and many times since. Events like Garland continue to prove him correct.

School Security: Wayne LaPierre delivered that statement at a press conference after the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He added:

“When it comes to our most beloved and vulnerable members of the American family – our children – we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,” LaPierre said, adding that [placing armed security at schools] will immediately make America’s schools safer.

Liberals tend to not want any armed presence on school grounds, be it by security or teachers. The Muhammad art exhibit was held on Garland school district property, and local police ended what could have been a mass slaughter of innocents. While the Garland, Texas officer was unarmed, in Argyle, Texas, they are armed:





ISIS: President Obama infamously called them “The JV team.” A February “DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat,” which led to this from CNN:




Strangely, our federal government, as well as many liberals, have gone to great lengths to dissuade those (like me) who think ISIS is a real threat to our country. I contend that they are already here, and our open border does nothing to stem the flow of people who are bent on our destruction. Why does the Left seem so invested in trying to have us ignore this danger?

As I write this early on Tuesday morning, stories are just now coming out that ISIS has claimed responsibility for Garland. From FOX News:

The Islamic State terror group (ISIS) Tuesday issued a claim of responsibility for Sunday’s attack on a Texas cartoon contest featuring images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The claim was made in an audio message on the group’s Al Bayan radio station, based in the Syria city of Raqqa, which ISIS has proclaimed to be the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. It is the first time ISIS has taken credit for an attack on U.S. soil, though it was not immediately clear whether the group’s claim was an opportunistic co-opting of a so-called “lone wolf” attack as its own.

The message described the shooting suspects as “two soldiers of the caliphate” and added “We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you.”

Texas: Let’s be honest, liberals hate Texas (not you, Austin). It represents so many things they despise: Freedom, guns, oil, the defeat of Wendy Davis, and so on. To that point, and as the perfect way to end this article, the (as usual) wise words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett:





https://ricochet.com/garland-liberals-worst-nightmare/

All he needs to do is buy bitcoins with whatever millions he gets from the states... All of it (minus expenses, etc)

The whole bitcoin ecosystem would be very happy and kim will become an instant BTCadass forever...

 

Visually yes if it wasn't as real as the loch ness monster...

Progressives eating their own? Now that's something worth to talk about...

 

No it is not. It's a representation of a progressive's mind as an illustration for the topic at hand


 

 

It has been apparent for some time that the subset of liberals consumed with the pursuit of “social justice,” particularly the feminist left, are so starved for victories that they will turn on anyone for a quick boost of self-esteem. The hard targets, those groups composed of individuals who are ideologically opposed to the modern social justice program, long ago stopped paying attention to the minor grievances that occupy the minds of campus feminists. As such, the only targets of opportunity left are of a softer variety.

It was this impulse that led the mob to attack an astrophysicist who had just managed a spectacular feat of engineering by landing a probe on a comet some 310 million miles from Earth for wearing a shirt they deemed inappropriate. It turns out that this offensive shirt, covered as it was with comic book images of women in provocative poses, was a handmade gift from a female friend. That was of no matter to the tribe. This accomplished individual was made to cry on camera as he apologized for offending only the most fragile sensibilities.

It was this impulse that forced Time magazine to apologize to its readers after it conducted a survey and discovered that the word “feminism” is tarnished beyond repair. By a mile, Time found that its readership believed that this word more than any other had outlived its usefulness. That reality was so offensive to the easily-offended that they demanded Time retract its discovery. This magazine, too, eventually accepted its role in the dock of a familiar show trial.

And it was this impulse that prompted a group of delicate souls to chase the director Joss Whedon off Twitter after he failed to observe properly the tenets of religious feminism in the film Avengers: Age of Ultron.

“Whedon’s departure did create a wave of speculation on Twitter that he closed his account because of ‘death threats,’” Time magazine reported. “A search of tweets directed at him over the past week definitely turned up some deep ugliness, with some of the abusive users urging him to ‘die’ or ‘commit suicide’ over plot points they didn’t like in Age of Ultron.”


The most abusive bullying came from viewers who objected to Black Widow’s tentative relationship with The Hulk’s Bruce Banner and another scene in which she was briefly captured by Ultron. There was also anger about how he depicted Quicksilver and a number of other plot points that “fans” of this comic book title apparently felt justified harassment. Filtered out and pasted together, as some on Twitter have done, it looks like significant vitriol – but compared to the immense volume of conversation about this film on the social media platform, it’s really background static.



It is no coincidence that Whedon, Time, and a sensitive, bookish scientist were all creatures of the left. They are the only people still listening to the mob of disaffected and tortured feminists for whom the only measure of self-worth they have left is their collection of scalps.

But this latest “victory” may be one of feminism’s last. They seem to have broken the backs of their otherwise tolerant ideological compatriots.

“Whedon is just one of many celebrities to have quit the social media service, but will be missed more than most,” The Verge’s Rich McCormick wrote. “In addition to his comedic output, he has been a staunch and vocal supporter of people such as Anita Sarkeesian who have faced systematic campaigns of online harassment. It’s not clear whether similar harassment, his relationship with movie executives and their contracts, or simple fatigue drove Whedon from the service, but with his disappearance, we’ve lost one of Twitter’s most respectful and relatable public figures.”

Even the comedian Paton Oswalt has had it with the mob. No conservative, Oswalt channeled the worst insult he could muster when he learned that the social justice police had run Whedon out of town: “Tea Party.”

“Yep. There is a ‘Tea Party’ equivalent of progressivism/liberalism,” he wrote. “And they just chased Joss Whedon off Twitter.”

We are witnessing soft attacks on soft targets met with equally soft pushback. This dynamic, while in its infancy, is nevertheless worth watching. This might be the beginning of the end of another period of collective hysteria in American history. It couldn’t come soon enough.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/05/the-left-eats-its-own-and-liberals-dont-like-it-much-at-all/

Piss Christ


Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.


The photograph is of a small plastic crucifix submerged in what appears to be a yellow liquid. The artist has described the substance as being his own urine in a glass.[2][3] The photograph was one of a series of photographs that Serrano had made that involved classical statuettes submerged in various fluids—milk, blood, and urine.[4] The full title of the work is Immersion (Piss Christ).[5][6] The photograph is a 60-by-40-inch (150 by 100 cm) Cibachrome print. It is glossy and its colors are deeply saturated. The presentation is that of a golden, rosy medium including a constellation of tiny bubbles. Without Serrano specifying the substance to be urine and without the title referring to urine by another name, the viewer would not necessarily be able to differentiate between the stated medium of urine and a medium of similar appearance, such as amber or polyurethane.[7]

Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture.[8]

The art critic Lucy R. Lippard has presented a constructive case for the formal value of Serrano's Piss Christ, which she characterizes as mysterious and beautiful.[7] She writes that the work is "a darkly beautiful photographic image… the small wood and plastic crucifix becomes virtually monumental as it floats, photographically enlarged, in a deep rosy glow that is both ominous and glorious." Lippard suggests that the formal values of the image can be regarded separately from other meanings.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ



The Holy Virgin Mary


The Holy Virgin Mary is a painting created by Chris Ofili in 1996. It was one of the works included in the Sensation exhibition in London, Berlin and New York in 1997–2000. The subject of the work, and its execution, caused considerable controversy in New York, with Rudolph Giuliani – then Mayor of New York City – describing Ofili's work as "sick".[1]

On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high by 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including oil paint, glitter, and polyester resin, and also elephant dung and collaged pornographic images. The central Black Madonna is surrounded by many collaged images that resemble butterflies at first sight, but on closer inspection are photographs of female genitalia; an ironic reference to the putti that appear in traditional religious art. A lump of dried, varnished elephant dung forms one bared breast, and the painting is displayed leaning against the gallery wall, supported by two other lumps of elephant dung, decorated with coloured pins: the pins on the left are arranged to spell out "Virgin" and the one on the right "Mary". Many other works by Ofili in this period – including No Woman No Cry – incorporate elephant dung, particularly as supports for the canvas, inspired by a period that Ofili spent in Zimbabwe.[2]

The mixture of the sacred (Virgin Mary) and the profane (excrement and pornography) became a cause of controversy when the Sensation exhibition moved to New York in 1999. The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought a court case against the Brooklyn Museum, with Giuliani describing the exhibition of Ofili's work as "sick" and "disgusting". Giuliani attempted to withdraw the annual $7 million City Hall grant from the museum, and threatened it with eviction. The museum resisted Giuliani's demands, and its director, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a federal lawsuit against Giuliani for a breach of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the court case.[3]

Giuliani was reported as claiming that Ofili had thrown elephant dung at a painting of the Virgin Mary: "The idea of having so-called works of art in which people are throwing elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary is sick."[4] The press also reported that the painting was "smeared", "splattered" or "stained" with dung.[5][6] Ofili, raised as a Roman Catholic commented that "elephant dung in itself is quite a beautiful object."[7] Other people doubted about the sincerity of these explanations, such as Carol Becker, who commented: "One has to question the sincerity of an artist like Chris Ofili, who in interviews presented the Holy Virgin Mary as nothing that should offend".[8]

The work was protected by a plexiglass screen, but was damaged when Dennis Heiner smeared white paint over the canvas on 16 December 1999. Heiner was charged with second-degree criminal mischief, and received a conditional discharge and a $250 fine. Scott LoBaido, an artist from Staten Island, was arrested on 30 September 1999 for throwing horse manure at the museum. He accused Chris Ofili's work of "Catholic bashing". Museum guards protecting the painting were quoted as saying: "It's not the Virgin Mary. It's a painting."[9]

Ofili's work caused less of a stir in the exhibition's London in 1997 or in Berlin in 1998. A planned exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra in 2000 was cancelled after the US controversy.

The painting was bought by David Walsh in 2007. It was included in Ofili's mid-career retrospective at Tate Britain in 2010.[1][10] As of 2011, it is exhibited at Walsh's Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, Tasmania – the largest private art museum in the Southern Hemisphere.[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Virgin_Mary











... The hypocrisy of Liberalism in full view... Sad for them to know Pamela is the one reminding them what freedom of speech is. Sad for them bill maher is the one reminding them what freedom of speech is... "Progressive artists" know they will never be any attacks from "extremist christians" because of some fatwa on their head...

The ban on commercial drilling of resources in Antarctica is due to expire in 2048, unless the Protocol on Environmental Protection is re-ratified by consensus. If the accord does expire, Antarctica could become the next major source of hydrocarbons on earth. The region is believed to have an approximate 200 billion barrels of oil, in addition to being the largest single repository of fresh water on the planet.

China's current investments could place it in an unrivaled position to take advantage of any resources on the continent in 2048.

"China's exploration of the continent is like playing chess. It's important to have a position in the global game," Guo Peiqing, a law professor at the Ocean University of China told The Guardian. "We don't know when play will happen, but it's necessary to have a foothold."



http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-making-moves-in-antarctica-2015-5

Well... At least he does not need a reading stand for his Kindle...

I want to see his wife and his children make the switch forever. On youtube. For the cause, global warming...

Professor Claims Global Warming Caused Nepal Earthquake






So not only does global warming cause volcanoes, but it also caused the massive earthquake that rocked Nepal Saturday and killed thousands of people.

“It now appears that there exists a clear relationship between the global warming and earthquakes and other under earth activities,” writes Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, an assistant professor at India’s Kanpur University.

Srivastava argues that when permafrost melts in the Arctic “and associated areas due to the increased global temperature, it is quite likely that the under located areas of the earth are affected due to alteration in the pressure on the earth crust.” He adds that when “water level on the seas and oceans increase due to the increased water quantity caused by the global warming, impact on the inside zones of earth can cause many tremors.”

Nepal and surrounding areas were hit with a 7.8 magnitude earthquake Saturday that toppled houses and killed more than 3,000 people. So far, officials say that a further 6,500 people have been injured and responders are continuing to rescue climbers around Mount Everest. On Sunday, a massive aftershock rocked the region, exacerbating the damage.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/27/prof-claims-global-warming-caused-nepals-earthquakes/