Ted Cruz of Texas of not showing genuine empathy for government workers. Published on Tuesday, June 18th, at a. Who is Steve Bullock? When it came time for the election, he and only one other Democrat in Montana won statewide offices — when Trump won by more than 20 points. By Stefanie Pousoulides. Who is Amy Klobuchar? Senate elections by wide margins in the politically competitive state of Minnesota. She is running for the presidency in by positioning herself as ideologically and rhetorically more moderate than most other members of the large candidate field.
Published on Monday, June 17th, at a. Who is Pete Buttigieg? A bio of the Democratic presidential candidate Unlike most presidential candidates in recent history, Pete Buttigieg has not served in Congress, as a governor or as a vice president. Yet his outlook is something of a throwback: Buttigieg has styled himself as a plainspoken, pragmatic candidate from the Midwest. Who is Andrew Yang? Formally, the policy is a universal basic income, but Yang calls it the "Freedom Dividend," and it has distinguished him as a candidate who was recently unknown in the political sphere.
Published on Friday, June 14th, at a. By Angie Drobnic Holan. Who is Jay Inslee? A bio of the Democratic presidential candidate Most Democrats say that climate change is a key issue, but Jay Inslee has gone further and made it the central issue of his campaign. Published on Thursday, June 13th, at p. Who is Elizabeth Warren?
The former law school teacher and researcher now pushes policies that she says will fix the flaws of capitalism. Our profile pulls together the key strands in her life. Who is Bernie Sanders? He did that by pushing for policies he has advanced for decades. Published on Wednesday, June 12th, at a. Who is Tulsi Gabbard?
A bio of the Democratic presidential candidate U. Tulsi Gabbard served two tours of duty in the Middle East and promises to keep the United States out of "regime change wars. Who is Marianne Williamson? Published on Tuesday, June 11th, at a. Who is Joe Biden?
- Find a copy in the library!
- Echoes From Home?
- The Masterpiece: A Short Story;
- Related Posts:?
- British & Empire Campaign Medals - Volume 1: 1793 to 1902 (British & Irish/Empire Campaign Medals).
- Diving deep : how to find truth in a sea of lies, bias, spin, scams, and fraud;
A bio of the Democratic presidential candidate Former Vice President Joe Biden, in his third bid for the presidency, has the longest political resume of anyone in the Democratic field. Donald Trump says Mexico agreed to start buying more from American farmers. Trump said a side agreement in the immigration deal meant Mexico would start buying massive amounts from American farmers.
It already does. And Mexico says it agreed to nothing new. Published on Monday, June 10th, at p. Nancy Pelosi cites principle of not talking about Donald Trump when overseas. She deosn't talk about him when she's overseas. But she isn't shy about laying out her policy disagreements with him. By Jon Greenberg , Stefanie Pousoulides. Published on Friday, June 7th, at p. Published on Thursday, June 6th, at a.
Here's what the audio shows. By Katie Sanders. Published on Sunday, June 2nd, at a. Mueller spoke. Trump reacted. We fact-checked. As he closed the Special Counsel office, Robert Mueller's final remarks were brief, but drew a rebuke from the president. Published on Thursday, May 30th, at p. Here's what we know Alyssa Milano and others are claiming that new abortion law in Georgia states that women will be subject to prosecution, but we will have to wait to see how prosecutors and courts interpret the law. Published on Friday, May 24th, at p.
Trump says miles of wall are coming soon. But most projects replace existing barriers The U. Construction is happening, he says, in spite of reluctance from Congress. Published on Wednesday, May 15th, at a. Many factors contributed to losses by Democrats in the races for governor in Georgia and Florida. Published on Friday, May 10th, at a. Published on Wednesday, May 8th, at p.
How often should Trump be fact-checked? Readers weigh in We asked readers to share their thoughts on how often President Donald Trump should be fact-checked. They shared their thoughts in this installment of mailbag. Published on Friday, May 3rd, at a. The record-setting Democratic primary field: What you need to know The calendar may say , but the Democratic primary is already in full swing.
Why is the field so big? Published on Thursday, May 2nd, at a. Did he? By John Kruzel. Published on Wednesday, May 1st, at p. The money and politics of prescription drugs: What you need to know America spends about as much on prescription drugs as all the revenues of the three big car makers combined.
Tracking where the money goes is hard. Published on Tuesday, April 30th, at a. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. Published on Friday, April 26th, at p. By Louis Jacobson , John Kruzel. Published on Friday, April 26th, at a.
Elizabeth Warren: Does her wealth tax pay for her child care and higher education plans? She counts on the revenues to pay for her child care and higher education plans. We asked education and tax economists what might throw off her predictions. They had a few ideas. Published on Thursday, April 25th, at a. Now, some are calling for her removal. Published on Wednesday, April 24th, at a. The redacted version of the report, released April 18 by Attorney General William Barr, verifies and supports media reports about events that Trump dismissed as "fake news. Published on Friday, April 19th, at p.
Published on Thursday, April 18th, at p. By PolitiFact Staff. Published on Wednesday, April 17th, at p. Fact-checking the Bernie Sanders town hall on Fox News Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders brought his message of single-payer health care, higher taxes on the super-rich, and free college tuition to the conservative audience of Fox News. What does it mean when Democrats say they support reparations? As the presidential race ramps up, Democratic candidates are talking about setting the country on a course of atonement through reparations.
Published on Wednesday, April 17th, at a. Published on Sunday, April 14th, at p. How unusual is the turnover among top Trump administration officials? Published on Friday, April 12th, at a. Medicare for All defines one end of the Democratic presidential debate Seeing who co-sponsored Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill is interesting.
More interesting are the other health care bills they signed on to. Published on Thursday, April 11th, at a. So the irresistible force has met the immovable object -- and observers expect that the courts will be asked to hash it all out. Published on Tuesday, April 9th, at a.
The flowers are blooming, and so is the PolitiFact email inbox. Published on Monday, April 8th, at a. Explaining the numbers behind the rise in reported hate crimes FBI data suggests that hate crimes have been on the rise since However, that only captures the reported hate crimes identified by law enforcement. Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate a higher number of hate crime victimizations, but they are not going up. By Yanqi Xu. Published on Wednesday, April 3rd, at a. By Josie Hollingsworth. Published on Tuesday, April 2nd, at a. Happy International Fact-Checking Day!
Supreme Court. Published on Monday, April 1st, at a. Published on Friday, March 29th, at p. No, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez probably didn't say that There are fake photos, like a doctored image of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez holding her legs open or the picture of a woman in a Facebook post that claims Ocasio-Cortez was fired from Hot Dog on a Stick for incompetence. One post spread a fake rumor that she had a credit score of and was evicted twice. And they all seem designed to discredit the youngest U. House representative, or to make her look stupid.
By Ciara O'Rourke. Published on Wednesday, March 27th, at p. Given that outcome, Republicans are renewing attention on the cost of the investigation that went on for nearly two years. Published on Tuesday, March 26th, at p. In a controversial move, Barr supplied a key legal judgment where Mueller declined to reach one. Published on Monday, March 25th, at p.
Martha Stewart to Donald Trump: Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime? We decided to take a closer look. Published on Sunday, March 24th, at p. PolitiFact partners with Noticias Telemundo to bring fact-checking in Spanish for election PolitiFact reporters and editors will be made available to Telemundo for on-air interviews, and Noticias Telemundo will be able to send statements for PolitiFact to fact-check for Spanish-language audiences. Published on Thursday, March 21st, at p. Published on Wednesday, March 20th, at p. Published on Monday, March 18th, at a. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
But Jews have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for decades. Published on Thursday, March 14th, at a. During his 2-hour-plus speech, Trump revisited many of the points from his political rallies. Published on Monday, March 4th, at p. Did Michael Cohen want a White House gig?
Published on Friday, March 1st, at p. In context: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Michael Cohen during the House Oversight Committee In recent years, members of Congress have been criticized for grandstanding during hearings instead of eliciting new information. Published on Thursday, February 28th, at a. What the Oscar movies get right, wrong Have you ever wondered if the movie you just saw — that claimed to be based on a real story or historical events — was really accurate?
So have we. Published on Tuesday, February 19th, at p. Medicare for All: What it is, what it isn't Medicare for All gets a lot of play in coverage of the Democratic primary, but it's meaning can get fuzzy around the edges. Published on Tuesday, February 19th, at a. Was the U. Donald Trump has said he thinks so. Published on Monday, February 18th, at p. Trump said he expected to be sued over his declaration, even though declarations are often signed.
National emergency declarations are signed relatively frequently by presidents, but Trump downplays the political implications of his move and the fact that many immigration experts and lawmakers question the existence of the crisis Trump says justifies his declaration. Published on Friday, February 15th, at p. Many aspects of his argument were misleading or wrong. Roses are red, violets are blue, PolitiFact loves truth, what about you? What better way to show your love for truth in politics? Published on Wednesday, February 13th, at p.
Donald Trump vs. Yet they were rallying their supporters less than a mile away from each other. Published on Tuesday, February 12th, at p. Published on Tuesday, February 12th, at a. We sort it out for you. Published on Friday, February 8th, at p. House Democrats and HR 1: Voting rights expansion or federal power grab? HR 1 has drawn strong reactions from those on opposite sides of battles over laws about voting rights.
Published on Friday, February 8th, at a. Fact-check: How true is Green Book? But how accurate is Green Book? By Manuela Tobias. Published on Thursday, February 7th, at p. But our fact-checking has found that the economic data clashes with their argument. Published on Thursday, February 7th, at a. Published on Tuesday, February 5th, at p.
Trump disagrees with his own intelligence team. We catalog the differences During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, several intelligence officials testified about security threats to the United States in a way that was sometimes at odds with what President Donald Trump has said. Published on Thursday, January 31st, at p. Michael Bennet's turn to speak on the Senate floor about the record-long government shutdown, the Colorado Democrat said he had had enough of criticism from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Here's a fact-checked recap of Bennet's claims.
Published on Friday, January 25th, at p. Often the facts behind those claims are either inaccurate or unsubstantiated. Published on Thursday, January 24th, at p. The Republican proposal to change the U. Published on Wednesday, January 23rd, at p. The upcoming Senate votes to end the shutdown: A closer look A pair of votes are scheduled in the Senate for Jan. But what are in these two measures -- one from the Republicans and the other from Democrats? And is there any likelihood of passage? By Tom Jones. Published on Wednesday, January 23rd, at a. How much does the government shutdown cost?
A tweet from a Democratic presidential candidate about the hourly cost of the ongoing government shutdown sent us on a complicated reporting mission. Published on Friday, January 18th, at p. Could Donald Trump declare a national emergency for a border wall? Published on Friday, January 18th, at a. Comparing progress on Trump, Obama campaign promises at two-year mark President Donald Trump is not the only presidential subject of scrutiny at PolitiFact. Published on Thursday, January 17th, at p. Your questions about the government shutdown, answered part 2 We recently asked readers what they wanted to know about the government shutdown.
In a previous installment, we tackled questions about missed work and pay for government employees. Published on Thursday, January 17th, at a. Published on Wednesday, January 16th, at p. Your questions about the government shutdown, answered We recently asked readers what they wanted to know about the government shutdown.
Now, we offer some answers. Published on Wednesday, January 16th, at a. Fact-checking Democrats on the shutdown's effects on food safety, hurricane prep A look at the impact on airport safety, hurricane preparedness, food stamps and food safety inspections. By Jon Greenberg , Amy Sherman. Published on Tuesday, January 15th, at a. Why Trump Is the most fact-checked president Americans have never seen this level of truth-bending come out of the Oval Office. Published on Monday, January 14th, at p.
Does Border Patrol catch 90 percent of immigrants crossing the border illegally? A former Obama official said that there is over a 90 percent chance that someone illegally crossing the southwest border will get caught, but experts cast doubt on that figure. Published on Friday, January 11th, at a.
Published on Wednesday, January 9th, at p. Published on Tuesday, January 8th, at p. Explaining Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70 percent marginal tax rate idea Rep. Published on Tuesday, January 8th, at a. Were migrant children who died very sick before taken into U. Published on Thursday, January 3rd, at a. Can House Democrats release Donald Trump's tax returns? As Democrats edge closer to taking control of the U.
Here's a closer look. Published on Wednesday, January 2nd, at p. A response to a recent critique of our fact-check about Citizens United In a recebt cikynb, former Democratic official and Washington Post contributing columnist Ron Klain, criticized a PolitiFact fact-check from Jan. We respond. Published on Thursday, December 27th, at p. PolitiFact's top 10 fact-checks of Some fact-checks draw more readers than others.
See the most popular ones here. Published on Thursday, December 27th, at a. Man behind viral border wall GoFundMe fundraiser also peddled false news A veteran from Florida started a now-viral GoFundMe fundraiser to help fund Trump's border wall, but his past includes running conspiracy theory news sites often cited for promoting false and inflammatory content. By Samantha Putterman.
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Don't Actually Deny Global Warming | DeSmogBlog
Published on Friday, December 21st, at p. What can we expect during a government shutdown? A government shutdown looms, as President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders in Congress skirmish over how much funding to allocate to a border wall between the United States and Mexico. If a shutdown occurs, it would be the third in the span of a year, following two brief shutdowns in January that stemmed from a dispute over immigration policy. Published on Thursday, December 20th, at p.
By Isaac Arnsdorf , Jon Greenberg. Published on Tuesday, December 18th, at p. Veterans Choice: How we reported this story The taxpayer dollars spent on fees to private Veterans Choice administrators was lumped in with medical care spending. The answer came from bringing together a handful of separate federal data sources. Donald Trump says tariffs will make America rich again. Economists disagree For years before he became president, Donald Trump has been intrigued by the idea of tariffs.
Published on Monday, December 17th, at p. How much is the Mueller investigation costing? Published on Friday, December 14th, at p. Published on Thursday, December 13th, at a. Published on Tuesday, December 11th, at p. Published on Tuesday, December 11th, at a. A look back at Lie of the Year, to PolitiFact awards the Lie of the Year to the most significant falsehood or exaggeration of the past 12 months.
A fact-checking milestone: Factcheck. By Bill Adair. Published on Thursday, December 6th, at a. He was one of the most distinguished military intelligence officers in a generation. Published on Wednesday, December 5th, at p. Here are the facts. Published on Saturday, December 1st, at p. How much does the Mueller investigation cost? We checked out the numbers. Published on Friday, November 30th, at p. Lie of the Year Readers' Choice Poll PolitiFact will soon announce our Lie of the Year -- the most significant falsehood of , as chosen by our editors and reporters.
We're also inviting PolitiFact readers to vote for the Readers' Choice award. How much has been spent so far on Donald Trump's border wall? But how much has money actually been allocated for that task? Published on Thursday, November 29th, at p. Here's a fact-check of the statement on Saudi Arabia that Trump released on Nov. By Jon Greenberg , Louis Jacobson. Published on Tuesday, November 27th, at a. It's GivingNewsDay!
Every dollar you donate to PolitiFact is now tripled This is big. Thanks to a generous donation from one of our supporters, every dollar you donate to PolitiFact now through Dec. By Aaron Sharockman. Is it legal for tear gas to be used against migrants? Border Patrol agents fired tear gas at migrants seeking entry at the southwest border, claiming the migrants were throwing rocks and bottles. Many users on social media debated whether tear gas is a chemical weapon, and if it is, why was it used against migrants?
Tear gas is allowed to be used in domestic law enforcement to control riots. Published on Monday, November 26th, at p. We look at the facts. Published on Monday, November 26th, at a. Midterm Facebook misinformation: Pipe bombs, menacing caravans and rampant voter fraud The false claims came quickly and steadily over Facebook in the weeks before and after the midterm elections. We picked a few notable ones that we shot down.
Published on Wednesday, November 21st, at a. Here are a smattering of emails we received from readers -- positive, negative, and neutral. They have been edited for length and clarity. Find your place card, grab a fork and dig in. By Kyra Haas. Published on Sunday, November 18th, at a. Published on Thursday, November 15th, at p. Donald Trump and Rick Scott allege fraud in Broward, Palm Beach vote counting without any evidence While there have been lots of problems in the vote counting, no judge or state office has proven fraud.
By Amy Sherman , Manuela Tobias. Published on Tuesday, November 13th, at p. Here's what it shows and whether it was doctored. Published on Thursday, November 8th, at p. So the Democrats won the House. What legislation might follow? Now what? Published on Wednesday, November 7th, at p. Is the migrant caravan an invasion? In the days leading to Election Day, President Donald Trump cast a caravan of Central American migrants walking to the United States as a national threat and as a force that required military intervention. Published on Tuesday, November 6th, at a.
But the way the voters cast their ballots on Nov. Published on Monday, November 5th, at p. Here is our summary of where the races stand in the final days before elections. Donald Trump on the campaign stump: His most glaring falsehoods It's been all over again, as President Donald Trump went into campaign mode and held rallies across the country to rev up his base. When he spoke, accuracy was optional. Here's a running list of some of his worst excesses.
Published on Monday, November 5th, at a. PolitiFact has been fact-checking the mounting misinformation about it. Published on Friday, November 2nd, at p. PolitiFact readers' election questions answered Ahead of Election Day, we asked our readers what claims they would like to see checked. Dozens responded to us, from coast to coast, with questions and requests, so we got to work on finding answers. Published on Friday, November 2nd, at a. Published on Thursday, November 1st, at a. Fact-checking Trump's campaign rallies: the final stretch We're fact-checking President Donald Trump at the final stretch of campaign rallies for the midterms.
The top 10 storylines of the midterms PolitiFact has been monitoring and fact-checking the midterm campaigns of in races across the country. Published on Wednesday, October 31st, at p. Can Donald Trump end birthright citizenship with an executive order? Probably not Just a week before the midterm elections, President Donald Trump emphasized his hard-line stance on restricting immigration. In an interview, he not only took aim at birthright citizenship -- the longstanding policy that virtually anyone born on U.
Published on Tuesday, October 30th, at p. How large is the migrant caravan? Estimates vary We review reports of how many people are on the journey. Published on Monday, October 29th, at p. Marijuana legalization in 5 charts: A midterm report About two in three Americans now favor marijuana legalization, a record-high measure of public support for a drug the federal government still puts in the same category as LSD and heroin.
Published on Friday, October 26th, at p. Fact-checking misinformation about the migrant caravan Misinformation about a migrant caravan heading to the United States is spreading on Facebook and other social media platforms as users share completely false or misleading memes and posts that paint a skewed version of the facts. Published on Thursday, October 25th, at p.
PolitiFact Sheet: What we know about the caravan heading to the United States President Donald Trump said the United States was under assault by some Central American countries because many of their citizens were trekking north in a caravan and seeking entry into the United States. Published on Monday, October 22nd, at p. The facts on taxes in 5 charts: a midterm report The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of -- the large tax bill passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Donald Trump -- is not getting mentioned much on the midterm campaign trail, perhaps because the public seems to be lukewarm on whether it was a good idea.
But taxes, like death, are among the few certainties in life. So we decided to take a graphical look at both the new tax law and the broader landscape of taxation in the United States. Published on Sunday, October 21st, at a. Did New York's John Faso break his promise to a woman with cancer? Congressman John Faso promised to protect a woman's health care. Whether he kept the promise is a source of political attacks.
By Stephen Koff. Published on Thursday, October 18th, at a. If so, on what basis do you claim that a 3rd order polynomial is superior to a line? Is there some physical law you are invoking to justify use of a 3rd order polynomial? Or are you instead invoking a 3rd order polynomial as another form of cherry picking? Do you pick your functions as facilely as you pick your data? Please provide a justification for preferring a 3rd order polynomial over a line.
I suggest that you are confusing random fluctuations with physical effects. Can you provide any scientific basis for your perceived cycle? Or are you just making it up? Data series for complex phenomena show all sorts of oddities. The data will wiggle around for a while, and then the wiggling will simply disappear for no apparent reason. People really learned this the hard way in the 60s and 70s when they started doing all sorts of complicated mathematical analyses of the stock market.
Simply eyeballing a data series and declaring the existence of cycles and trends never works UNLESS there is some underlying physical reason for such behavior. We DO have a solid physical reason for looking for linear changes in temperatures. The graph on which you base your statement uses 24 month running sums. Do you know what that means? Can you explain why a 24 month running sum is superior to a month running sum? You have to look at the big picture, not little bits and pieces of data.
You have to look at ALL the data. Increasing temperatures cause carbon dioxide frozen in permafrost to be released into the atmosphere. In other words, increasing temperatures cause CO2 concentrations to rise. Thus, CO2 concentrations follow temperature increases. BUT they also lead temperature increases: more CO2 in the atmosphere causes a larger greenhouse effect, which increases temperatures. The existence of half of the vicious circle does not argue against the other half of the vicious circle. We do not completely understand what happens inside a nuclear bomb.
So the people of Hiroshima are just psychosomatics, right? Because the physics of radiative emission and absorption is very solid and well-established. Or are you saying that the physicists are wrong about this, too? Here is the NASA chart that shows total sea ice area since Show me all the ice melting that they say is going on, the 30 year trend shows little deviation, as one pole melts the other ices over, every year.
Very little deviation. From the press you think it would have been cut in half. If that is not enough, here is another one. Sea temperature is very important in driving weather. NASA says that the oceans are now entering a 30 year cooling phase, this started in Take a look at this weeks sea temperatures, they are cooling big time!!!!!
Lower sea temperature will cause overall temperatures to drop worldwide and there will be more polar ice, not less. No ice melting, oceans are cooling. See any connection between temperature increase and data collection here??? Ok, you still are not convinced.
Did you know that CO2 by itself can only raise temperatures 1. You can double, tripple, CO2 and it can not raise temperatures by itself, it must trigger other feedbacks, such as cloud formation, but there is no proof of this happening, in fact, if it warms, there is less cloud formation, not more, clouds become a negative feedback and make it cooler. So man only contributes. And they say this little amount will melt the poles! I doubt Mike M will engage you further. An MS in meteorology from Florida State leaves one rather unprepared to debate at this level.
Are you saying that Mike M has an MS in meteorology? I find that very difficult to believe. He completely screwed up the analysis of the cyclone energy data. I had him figured for somebody who had taken an elementary meteorology course in college twenty years ago. This is the common subterfuge I always get when I set environitwits back on their heels. I am familiar with the physics, nowhere near as much as say Dr. Richard Lidzen! Show me ONE that predicted the current climate….
I predict we are going to get a LOT cooler over at least the next 5 years. Meanwhile Obama is going to DOUBLE the cost of almost everything because almost everything is affected by the cost of energy, ie raise taxes , with his socialist money grab in the name of limiting carbon dioxide which has never been proven to to significantly affect the climate. What you FAIL to mention is that all of this alarmism began only about 20 years ago!
Same MO, same players, anti-nuke union of concerned scientists, UN sychophants, etc. It specifies radiative transfer of black bodies. When you combine this with the absorption spectrum for CO2, you get — drumroll — global warming! The basic physics is often taught in lower division physics courses. The statement you made would earn you an F on a test in one of these courses. I challenge you to provide a specific criticism of a specific model.
So please, show me the element of the model, the equation, approximation, or numeric value that you find objectionable, and the reason why you find it flawed. Weather is not climate. You must write that times on the chalkboard after school. Oh, dear, very bad step on your part. Me, I rely on science to drive my scientific judgements. However, being wild-eyed alarmists, scientists never said anything about it publicly because there was no empirical evidence to support it. When Mr. Hansen began sounding the alarm twenty years ago, most scientists took a wait-and-see attitude.
As the evidence in favor of the AGW hypothesis mounted year after year, and no substantial evidence against it appeared, more and more scientists decided in favor of the hypothesis. Now, after twenty years of accumulated detailed evidence, the great majority of scientists support it. Sorry, their models are already DOA Again, weather is not climate.
Oh, really? Are you prepared to substantiate that claim? This matter has been much investigated and completely debunked. Fortunately, you are already in the minority on this point; you have already lost the scientific battle and now you are losing the political battle. And when we start the political debate on the details of how to respond to it, most people will write off the deniers as nutcases undeserving of a serious hearing. Which means that the debate will be dominated by the reality-based people. The resultant is what he concludes ECS is.
Specifically, he would use the large-signal slope or as the extrapolation slope. Of course, he obscured this by not describing it in terms of extrapolation or slopes. But what his approach implies is that the slope of a. In other words, the climatology approach is standard linear extrapolation, whereas his theory boils down to bad extrapolation. He refers to Mr Monckton as Lord to set him up as a higher power before referring to the error made in high school math. Very deceitful indeed. Oh dear, oh dear! Here we go again. If one is courteous one will observe the usual conventions of address and be polite in your address.
Harry, Christopher Monckton is a grown man. If Christopher is upset, he is more than capable of saying something, and he just might take off a strip of your hide in the process in the most delightful English fashion. He is not a man to sit on a perceived slight, and more power to him in that regard. So when you are getting upset about what someone calls him, you are indeed engaged in taking third-party offense. And unless Christopher has appointed you his spokesdude, I pay no attention to such third-party whining, other than to point it out.
But, no matter, I get your pov. There are better ways to express objection. I respect Dr Roy Spencer for his work with Satellite measurements although it is actual John Christie that has worked out the formulae and does the calculations. If Spencer read some engineering texts on these subjects he would find that there is no such thing as back-radiation. Engineering science measurements which have resulted in outcomes for equipment designs and property measurements show that CO2 has no affect on atmospheric temperatures.
Experience of hundreds of thousands maybe millions of engineers since since the late 19th century have confirmed the theory. Finally, actual well known facts from meaurements is that temperature changes lead CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere. These facts all indicate that the so-called sensitivity is zero or more correctly sensivity does not exist.
Chemical physicists quantify radiation across lines. Look at the NET radiation, summed across all sources. That can be positive or negative. Study Line By Line models and how they have been validated. Kratz, D. An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 90 , pp. Your argument has no basis. Study what Spencer actually says. Please stop wasting time and attention with your anti-scientific comments.
I do not want to make nasty comments but are any of you familiar with the work of Prof Hoyt Hottel which is to a small extent outlined in the chapter called Heat and Mass transfer in the Chemical Engineering Handbook or called Heat transfer in the Mechanical Engineering Handbook? Have any of you had some actual experience with heat transfer from gases or flames? I have designed burners for various fuels such as coal, waste oils, natural gas, pulverised waste carbon anodes.
I have made hundreds of heat balances. I have measured CO2 in many process and have even measured CO2 in the atmosphere. The wavelength lines are a factor in the emissivity of a mixed gas in a temperature range. Partial pressure of radiative gases in the mixture is another factor. One can not look at the properties of a pure gas to determine the emissivity. Finally look at the original work on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in original German text The S-B applies to surfaces in a vacuum. Gases do not have a surface but as Hottel found estimates can be made by using volume consideration.
Please stop talking about pseudo-physics. Heat transfer has been an engineering subject since around the from the work of Lazare Carnot the father of Sadi Carnot after whom the Carnot cycle is named. Willis, below, I normally find your posts interesting but you are not correct about everything and I have in the past found that you have pointed to articles that have no relevance.
As well as I recall you have no qualifications in chemistry or engineering and I also recall you do not understand dimensionless numbers which are used in engineering including in heat transfer. Tell me what exactly happens to the infrared shine of the Earth that happens to point towards the Sun? Have they explained all the ice ages and hot ages the Earth has gone through using their models?
Totals do not add as some adjustments have multiple causes. Christopher has anyone asked Nic Lewis to review your study? Your problem here is not unlike the Brexit fiasco. You are trying to get people to comply with a set of rules such as implementing the Brexit referendum decision when they REALLY do not want to. In such cases the opportunities for evasion are too numerous to mention. In your case i would simply defend against exposure by ensuring that the Crown Prosecution Service ruled such a prosecution as not being in the public interest.
And I would waffle a bit about scientific freedom to decide what to publish. Though inexperienced in this field, I predict that what would happen is:. As they do most complaints. The Blair defence would be invoked to stall or stop any action. The Blair defence is Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay, this works for well over 10 years, and results in documents being released that are so heavily redacted they are worthless to the public. If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument…..
Your problem is, I believe, that the courts have explicitly stated that they are not the places to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific hypotheses. Perhaps there is some ability to require errors of fact to be corrected in policy submissions to ministers? Then again, perhaps not…. I have a question for you. We know the average temperature of the Earth is 15 degrees C, and that without the atmosphere it would be C. So the natural GH effect warms Earth by 33C. This is old science.
I believe the 15C is an actual measurement, and the C and 33C is a calculation based on the science. My question is this. If the AGW theory says there is a massive feedback in going from ppm to or ppm, then there MUST also be a massive feedback in the steps from ppm to ppmm and ppm. They deal with feedback to temperature, not to CO2 concentration. He provides as given values the equilibrium with- and without-feedback responses to pre-industrial and current CO2 concentrations, and he also gives the without-feedback value for doubled CO2.
All he does is extrapolate the with-feedback temperature for double CO2 from the five given temperature values. It was feedback to temperature that I said could be seriously nonlinear. But nothing in his work bolsters my opinion. Lord Monckton, you need to dumb down the language if you want people to follow your argument, and I personally found your logic difficult to follow and I want to ….
If you want a broader audience to follow, they will need to be hand held…. The site search feature may find some of those if you want to read them. Google probably has them archived too. There he gives two values From those values he extrapolates a with-feedback temperature I am never sure of the claims of fraud. One element of fraud is that the perp knows the claim to be false. Feynman, as usual, had something to say about being careful about this:.
Having fooled myself a number of times, I often give others the benefit of the doubt in that department. One really needs to find evidence that the perps actually believe that they are wrong and yet persist, instead of live in a world of fooling themselves. Thanks, fah. I will be absorbing this for days. Thank you! At root, these mundane chemical —not nuclear— processes do not self-reinforce by some iterated, sloshing-bucket type reaction, but cancel to equilibrium as kinetic differentials dissipate. This thing is now all-pervasive.
Sounds reasonable and not too alarming, but for the tragedy for those affected. However, I suspect here, the issue will be the deliberate breach of process. With collusion or conspiracy as a multiplier effect. Journals pride themselves in the way they publish ground breaking papers. Of all the issues facing us today, it seems peculiar the it is only climate science believes that, as self declared, its settled, they no need to publish all sides of the science on climate.
We have the wilful refusal to publish data, the refusal of the media to cover all aspects of the debate. There is so much to choose from, however, it will be hard to get sufficient detailed evidence that will stand up in court. Taking what Monckton has said at face value, there has been no reviewer who have provided a reasonable justification for rejecting publication. It appears to only be a personal disagreement with the thesis and conclusion. Fortunately, Einstein was not faced with the same barriers of prejudice.
I agree that courts are not the place to decide scientific truths. Deliberate breach of WHAT process? There is no law concerning when a reviewer can reject a piece. I happen to have some knowledge of this, as I am occasionally involved in advising on whether to publish something on WUWT. Or everything is right except for one single claim, and I think that error propagates throughout the whole piece.
Hell, NO! Joe Born had a proposed post discussing the errors made by Monckton turned down by WUWT … is he entitled to sue for fraud in a criminal court? Given the ubiquitous inter dependencies in Physics, I would expect that this alleged fundamental mistake would have become obvious in many branches in Physics and not require a single journal to publish a paper that — evidently — did not pass peer review. The claim of fraud — implying monetary reward for a cover-up — suggests that there is a lot more money to be made in exposing such a fundamental mistake in one or more of the many non-climate Physics journals.
In fact, discovering a fundamental error would seem to be grounds for a Nobel prize. Even though the world is ending in 11 years, 9 months, those extra 15 years could be important in saving a remnant of humanity on the Indian subcontinent. Please correct. Therefore it is hard to assess if the advise of the lawyer is accurate, but i believe, by all standards, that at least under European continental punitive law this seems very far fetched.
If the answer would be affirmative, lobbying and even politics would be made impossible. The K is calculated assuming the naked earth keeps its 0. That is just flat ridiculous. NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a F frozen ice-covered ball. The earth would get blasted by the full K, C, F solar wind. As someone who has studied control theory, physics and climate I find the way the argument is put forward is extremely difficult to follow — although an improvement from the last time.
That the scientific modelling of the effect of adding CO2 on the direct temperature is about 1C for a doubling of CO2. This argument however is extremely difficult to follow.
- A Death in Valencia: (Max Cámara 2)!
- The most recent articles on PolitiFact?
- Featured Partners;
- Spunky Women?
- A City of Marble: The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication).
- From Fat to Skinny to Healthy: Musings From My Weight-Loss Journey.
- 1: It makes employees unhappy;
But at any point, although we have CO2 levels we only have one temperature. This gives two known temperatures and from this it is possible to derive a figure of a. But this value will vary depending on how you define the periods. Also, in any system there are time lags so a is not a simple constant but varies with time. In short, any calculation of feedback requires a very clear definition and model of how you have two temperatures which relate to any one period under consideration.
No natural system would have feedbacks around 4 without showing the vary characteristic signal of a system with such massive positive feedbacks. The climate does not show this except perhaps going into and out of the ice-age. The main problem with the feedbacks, is not the crazy estimates of the scale of feedbacks which just aren't credible, but that the feedbacks do not take into account the large amount of natural variation that exists in the climate.
And without knowing the level of natural variation, you are bound to get outrageous figures for supposed feedback — and they do. But the level of current natural variation is unknown — and the real fraud is to pretend it does not exist. That then leads to the fraudulent argument: "because nothing else can explain why temperature changes — it must be man-made CO2" which I put that way as it's clearly total BS.
Say we have pre-industrial and current values of those quantities as well as a doubled-CO2 value for. But that function does show that using the average slope instead of the local slope rarely gives you a good answer unless the function is nearly linear. And maybe it is nearly linear.
The more-compelling arguments come from heavy hitters like Richard Lindzen or Nic Lewis. And unless or until you address the megalosaurus in the room: natural variety, it is total BS to attempt to do any kind of assessment on feedbacks. So Monckton is highlighting a mistake in something that no intelligent person should be attempting to do in the first place. He contends that, even if you accept that exercise as worthwhile, he has proven mathematically that they went about it the wrong way whereas he has arrived at the correct climate sensitivity by doing it right.
The only sensible approach to calculating feedback is to try to measure the scale of the non-CO2 feedback changes. But to be frank — the most obvious feedback mechanism is that of cloud formation due to rising thermals. One really cool way to look at this Gavin Schmidt? Science is about learning. As a reputable scientific journal, none should not take sides, nor proffer one hypothesis over another. Different trains of thought are how we learn. The same journal can contain two opposing hypothesis and still be correct in doing so, unless there is a mathematical error, or a flawed study, or some scientific error.
If errors are found, that needs to be reported back to the author. If there is no error, the paper should be published to challenge or support the status quo — or a new theory altogether. Stonewalling is not a scientific principle. Stonewalling infers either incompetence or misdeeds. That is where fraud and conspiracy need a legal authority to break up the misdeeds, or the incompetent reviewer or editor must be taken to task.
As ridiculous as the mental image of Bobbys with sticks and whistles going after a magazine like chasing Jack the Ripper is, fraud is fraud. In this case, the magazine seemed to be stonewalling. Fraud in the case of one reviewer i. Incompetence of the editor at best, conspiracy to commit fraud the other. Either answer requires action from someone. Science is not changing, nor is it settled. It is just that our understanding of the universe, including our climate, is constantly growing. Our understanding of science is changing. Scientific journals is how science is talked about.
A scientific journal must be true to science, and never blindly supporting the status quo. Christopher: I think George Mihailides, above, has said something really important. If you want to get people like me to support you technical view, you need to make it clearly understandable. Which it is not, at the moment. And by the way, I was an undergraduate at Cambridge at the same time as you. I was a Trinity mathematician, you were was a Churchill classicist.
In some ways, you and I are very alike people — we both learn quickly, and like to venture far beyond our areas of expertise. Normally, I would be one of the last people to berate you for anything.
Alibaba SCAM Exposed! Tips & Tricks for 2017!
But given the importance of this issue, I feel I have to ask you to make your case clearer. There are as I have pointed out to you many times multiple errors you do not take account of. One of the most difficult is that the feedback term is temperature dependent due to the iris effect.
That is that as the temperature rises the cloud cover rises suddenly as the dew point is approached at some point in the air column. This effect is non-linear and thus the feedback is non stationary. You cannot use a scalar analysis in this case. This is analogous the situation that occurs when an amplifier runs out of dynamic range, the output trying to exceed the supply rails the system saturates and the gain falls dramatically. Not that there is physically any gain element in the climate system or a power supply the power supply is deemed to also be the input signal, try doing that in a real amplifier and see how far you get.
An example would be a sine wave oscillator, the scalar DC output would be zero, but the actual output at any time except two moments per cycle would be anything but zero. These delays also cause hysteresis non linearities. Forget the criminal case. Journals are privately owned and the discretion to publish must rest with the owner.
The conspiracy by three journals to refuse to publish or fairly review for publication would seem to be just as benign. If you want a legal result, go for a civil case. Perhaps you could get sued for defamation and defend yourself as did Deborah Lipstadt in the defamation claim made by David Irving.
In that case the judge made it clear that his job was not to judge history. As for the mathematical gobbledygook, I would forget relying on that for legal purposes. No judge could make a finding of fact based on those hieroglyphics except to acknowledge the opinion of several learned expert archaeological witnesses.
And then it would be just as easy for the judge to select the opinion of the orthodox Egyptologist as it would be to accept the opinion of your legal expert. Of course there are problems with this approach. Second, a civil suit requires that you have money in the bank to pay legal fees. Perhaps a crowd funding approach? With respect to climate, the science publication machine is clearly broken, corrupted by special interests. Two precedents given similar treatment are papers by Dr. If allowed to continue, the problem bodes ill for the future.
At this stage, it can be remedied only by public officials who control the flow of funds which supports the unscrupulous conduct that maintains the broken machinery. The Teen Age Super Sleuths are addressing this video and are exposing the hoax is a pretty funny manner. Get some pictures and get published.
I am sure that a robust conversation with the journal editor would get him to release his email trails and telephone records that would help to identify more culprits. Sir, I really enjoyed watching your video presentations of these findings, and was convinced right away. However, I personally found your earlier presentation given in Australia much easier to follow. This brought the message home. But when variance is shown on the same graph, the climatologists version is all over the page, while the correct equation is charting a nice neat road across the page.
You argue, that the neat version is the correct version, and the argument is complete at that point. Then the comparison can begin. How does the wrong version, lead to climate alarmist interpretation, of the same empirical data. Those of us with an instinct for how control systems behave I speak of engineers, including myself know that there is no actual common sense sign of runaway feedback in the climate system, and the correct model bears this out.
But now we can see how those who are dedicating themselves to modelling software, who may not have done control systems labs, or basic electronics, if they put their numbers in, to their model, the variances on the output are so wide as to scare the living daylights out of them. They are told that any output sensitivity greater than 1. So, when you look at the width of the road, the variance, the authentic model shows that at all points on the sensitivity curve, there is a similar narrow range of variance.
The model is being being coherent, for all values of input, the relationship to the sensitivity output is clearly around about the calculated value. The climatologists feedback equation gives the same curve but with an obvious glaring problem. The variance road starts off narrow, in the region of least concern, but rapidly widens.
This shows clearly that any alarmist thinking applied to the input will be amplified dramatically on the output. In other words, when an alarmist considers the range of temperature perturbations predicted by their overly pessimistic models, and inputs them, the graph shows the wide road of variance in sensitivity, is well into the run away feedback amplification area where your microphone is howling out of control.
And this result is what is driving the input alarmism. In other words there is another feedback loop in play. Alarmism begets alarmism. So I found that your original presentation did a lot for me, in terms of explaining the logic behind the whole political scene. Your more recent papers have a different tone completely. Which is indeed true, and then you dive into maths to prove the point. Your earlier presentation offered a lot more hand holding inviting the audience to follow the same trail of discovery that you had recently stumbled across.
Experts are not always the best teachers or coaches. They may forget what it is like to be a beginner. That is what your current paper feels like to me as compared to earlier presentations. I suggest a rethink, or hand it over to a less expert author to re-present the story from the beginning. Keith H, As a retired professor of computer science I taught among other things computer modeling. A model must be a simplification. Oversimplification is common in models — factors which are present in the real world are all too often not included in the model.
Garbage In; Garbage Out is common, too. That is, the input data may not include relevant data. These are the banes of computer modeling. Only if the predictions actually match the real world can a model be trusted at all. So either the models are incomplete oversimplified or they do not consider all relevant data.
No doubt Einstein would have had a much longer wait time for publication or comments in this day and age and it would still depend considerably on which journal and if the one person capable of understanding it ever got to it Planck. Lord Monckton, Do by all means proceed. At the present, the formulae are of less import than a decade ago, when it was more reasonable to consider the alarmist position.
Now, a decade having passed, the evidence is the more explicit: there has been fraud. In no instance am I suggesting that the proving of the science less matters now. On the contrary, it must be done if a stake, a heart and a crossroads are to be joined.
Shop by category
But the science bears less today than it would have done ten years ago upon the decision to claim fraud. If I am a police officer and I have seen murder done with my own eyes, I pursue the murderer. I know that I shall still have to prove murder in court, but that is second in my consideration of whether to bring the murderer to justice. This I must do. The proof I must thereafter present. One comment gave the opinion that the collection of a fund for this cause ought to be possible. I agree. If you will proceed, you will do honor a favor. This is very interesting as the thermodynamic properties of water support the conclusions on the question of feedback.
- Spinning the ‘warmest year’;
- Most Popular Posts.
- Hack Proofing Sun Solaris 8.
- Top 5 reasons why “The Customer Is Always Right” is wrong.
- ABOUT THE MAGAZINE!
Whether deliberately or not the IPCC. This results in the. What is of interest here is the link shown between humidity values and the feedback factor. Not surprising really as the more evaporating water in the atmosphere the more the reduction in sensitivity. It may be said that where water is concerned the net feedback effect is a balance between the positive GHE of the water in the absence of phase change and this negative feedback generated by the Latent Heat process. All in all I suggest that the balance is negative; NOT positive as claimed by the IPCC and this would go some way to explaining the disparity between the models and observed reality.
As for the fraud aspect: there are plenty of examples out there, starting within the IPCC itself. A huge problem now that the scientific community with beleaguered exceptions has sold its soul to politics. If the CAGW hysterical politicians and extremists get their way, some 6 billions humans will be killed due to the loss of petroleum and fossil fuels. Times 60 years of life. Definitely exorcised. That 1. No one has died from CAGW in 40 years. If 20 time 1. What were you failing to understand about that?
Regardless of how correct or not this paper is, the points being made are moot. The theory has already been falsified due to lack of tropospheric hotspot, no point going down any other rabbit holes. Sticking to simple refutation based on the rules climate science itself has established is the best way to go. I believe this approach has more validity than the frivolous lawsuits being thrown out of court here in America.
Best wishes Lord Monckton! In a past discussion, Christopher even threatened me with legal action … say what? So how about we keep the judicial system separate from the scientific debates, except for charming folks like Peter Gleick? I say this in part because the usual problem is not fraud, it is what is called Noble Cause Corruption. This happens when someone thinks that their cause is so important that they can neglect minor things … and after while, in the name of saving the world from some imagined Thermageddon they move to neglecting major things, generally accompanied by ignoring some part of the science.
My point is here, if Boris can be hauled up in front of a court for violating the Noble Concept of politics, then The Noble Concept of law and science are both liable to scrutinisation. Let a lawyer near anything and it all goes to cr p. They are not arbiters of fact, they are arbiters of their own bank balance. Who does it deceive to their irreparable harm? If the refs are acting fraudulently during the debate, then it is no longer a scientific debate and an external force can and should be applied.
If a hierarchy becomes corrupt and is too rigid to be reformed from within, then it must be dismantled by force. I see nohing controverdial here, other than the reviews and treatment M appears to have been given and the reaction M relates. While I agree with you that the judicial system should not be used to decide science, Lord Monckton presented a paper questioning the science, for review. As I understand it, he was going to use the refusal to publish such a paper as evidence that there was fraudulent intent on the part of those who refused to publish anything that did not support CAGW.
There is plenty of science, including some provided by you, that causes extreme skepticism of the case for CAGW. So science is not the problem. The problem is people using CAGW for their own partisan purposes. While undoubtedly there is some Noble Cause Corruption, there is a great deal more out-and -out fraud.
Your mention of Peter Gleick is a case in point. Therefore the solution lies not in science, but in the political realm. While I have an incomplete understanding of the British governing system, in the US, this would include the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. So the judicial system does have a part to play. Think about it. Here is exactly what will happen if we do that. Can you believe those fools! Their ideas are simply wrong, and my ideas reveal the critical flaw in their bogus theories.
Yeah, that will turn out just fine … NOT. You are asking a judge to override a reviewer who in most cases is an expert in the field. Not a good idea. So just what do you plan to charge them with? Reality strikes, journal editors get to do whatever the heck they want! Threatening to sue them, or prosecute, etc. If Chris can demonstrate that the scientific journal published papers to a lesser standard or had a record of publishing papers with a particular scientific or political slant, whilst claiming to be impartial, then I think there is a very good case to confront them legally.
How about we have a journal claiming to be impartial and then publishing nothing but alarmist climate science….. Oh wait! The BBC has a duty to be impartial because everyone who watches it is required to pay a licence fee irrespective of their political, scientific, religious, ethnic etc. Most certainly, as far as the BBC are concerned, innumerable people have written to them objecting to their partisan left leaning agenda, but they take no notice.
Clearly, there is a lawyer who agrees with Chris. I agree with you that letting judges decide what gets published is a horrible idea, and that no one has a right to have their paper published. My thoughts are more philosophical than that. It seems to me that Lord Monckton is just doing just that. Exploring how the courts might be used to counter the barrage of CAGW propaganda. I wish him well in his efforts. Years ago, when I first started reading WUWT, it was mostly about the science, and your contributions were some of the ones I read most eagerly.
After a while I realized that there was little more that could be said. The science, rather than being settled, was wide open to question. But still the CAGW beat continued. When more political posts began being run on WUWT, some commenters objected, but not me. It is in the political realm that CAGW must be defeated. Therefore ways must be explored to combat the propaganda by all means possible, including the courts.
The jidge would rule on whether or not the editor s are engaged in fraud. How could it exactly? Suppose the verdict is guilty. At most editors and journals in general then adopt a bit more cautious and careful approach with their reviews. A good editor will actually already do a bit of that in their decision letter. You have a point. We are not dealing with science in this noisy debate. Scientific debate is conducted quietly in the background. The noisy debate is political. According to the doctrine of separation of powers the courts would be correct to refuse getting involved with political issues.
AGW theory is a totally busted flush. A dram or two perhaps, being that we are abstemious individuals. I will be in Ayr celebrating the marriage of my Son and future daughter in law in September. Nowhere in human history has it been demonstrated by empirical means that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm. Diversions to unrelated topics are worthless.