In September 2015, Amazon.com, controlled by Jeff Bezos, added to its Amazon Prime package free subscription(*) to the The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos (1). Thus, The Washington Post officially became an integral part of Amazon. This kind of arrangement between a national newspaper and a monopoly in multiple retail segments is unprecedented.
The Washington Post is one of the most rabid fakestream media outlets. Amazon is one of The Dirty 129, having served as a “witness” in a lawsuit, filed by the corrupt Washington State Attorney General Ferguson against the Executive Order No. 13769. Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
Even before the elections, Donald Trump hinted that Amazon was a monopoly, and later The Washington Post assigned a special reporter’s team to dig dirt on him.
(*) Free subscription for 6 months and 60% discount for unlimited time after that.
The conflict of interest. Like it or not, real experts do typically have conflicts of interest, or at least an appearance of one. For example, medical doctors diagnose illness, recommend treatment, and perform the recommended treatment. This creates a real and strong conflict of interest. As patients, many of us are aware of that and address it by one or more of the following: trust the doctor’s integrity, rely on the doctor’s accountability, or seek a second opinion.
Climate alarmists made accusing their opponents of conflicts of interest their main argument, and use it without regard to the facts. But what about themselves? Climate alarmists have a uniquely strong conflict of interest because majority of them have their entire income derived from the sources that advance climate alarmism. And there are no mitigating factors:
They lack honesty; their continuous association with Michael Mann and other uncovered frauds is positive proof of that.
They are immune from accountability or believe themselves to be immune.
There is no counterweight to their conflict of interest.
Finally, they go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone from giving a second opinion, and dissuade their “patients” from even seeking a second opinion. And they have a central body called Climate Action Network that was created explicitly to create a single narrative (“to speak in one voice”), so none of the few scientists among the alarmists would accidentally utter a second opinion.
Hiring a lukewarmer Bret Stephens by The NY Times to cover the climate debate is too little, too late. But he referred to an article by Andrew Revkin who was a regular NYT climate alarmist in a little known. In this article My Climate Change, published in a small website issues.org more than a year ago, Revkin admitted to the alarmism, organized pressure, and more.
The main quotes:
“I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation or strengthen the faltering 1992 climate change treaty.”
“In 2006, I was part of a team of reporters at The Times that undertook a multi-year series called “The Energy Challenge” (nytimes.com/energychallenge), examining what it would take to deeply cut reliance on coal, oil, and gas, and move to climate-friendly technologies. The deeper we dug, the more we ran into enormous disconnects between the data and the claims. It was very clear that any transition to clean energy would be neither simple nor quick—and it wasn’t only for lack of political will.”
“In a radio interview I heard some years ago a BBC employee recalls his first day of work at the media establishment. An experienced colleague-mentor led him upstairs and out onto the roof. The two of them then stood together on the edge of the roof and urinated down on the people many floors below at ground level. (They were both male BTW.) This, the mentor explained was an important rite of passage impressing on a new employee the correct BBC attitude to hold towards the general public.” Continue reading BBC Pisses on the Public, Kisses up to Warmists→
New information is added time and time again to so many of these already published articles. Entire walls of text have been added, or deleted.
Occasionally, the topic of the article is changed. Where authors had moved forward with one topic, they then completely switched courses and rewrote the entire article.
Also seen, are complete rewrites of headlines.
There are manipulative tactics used against political figures they hate, like Bannon and Trump. We’ve seen them omit information and quotes that are positive and weaken the author’s malicious intent with the article. We’ve also seen authors demonize these names with language that implies guilt. For example, instead of quoting someone as “saying” something, they will quote them as “admitting” something, as if the person quoted has a knowledge of guilt present.
It seems as if the only time readers are notified of any changes is to report when they have incorrectly spelled someone’s name, misidentified someone’s title, or something relatively minor. In fact, out of the dozens of articles we reviewed, we have yet to see the reader told even once that an article’s topic has completely changed, or that several paragraphs have been added.
We’ve got the impression that NYT, formerly the paper of the record, feels it is OK to revise the record, “for a good cause.” Just like NOAA and other formerly trustworthy scientific organizations.
Keep in mind that web articles from sources even less respectable than NY Times are quoted by URLs in legal documents, and are alleged as grounds for Attorneys’ General investigation.
It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets became fake news purveyors. Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence is there to prove their intent to deceive.
Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.
The local investigation into the shooting continues, according to Dr. Roy Spencer.
Notably, the “March For Science” organizers removed evidence of “financial support” to their satellites from their website on the day of the March or immediately after it. This screenshot was taken on April 25:
The promise of “financial and legal resources” was already removed from the site on that day, and remained only in the Google snapshot.
In September 2016, WaPo published an article with the title: “Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.” The subject of the article was one of the lesser known cases of suppression of climate dissent in formerly respectable peer reviewed journals, suppression supported by a formerly respectable media. That case clearly shows impossibility for dissenters from climate alarmism orthodoxy to publish in scientific journals.
The Washington Post’s reaction is an expression of its contempt for free speech, which includes the use of pseudonyms. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote The Federalist Papers under the pseudonym (or the “fake name” according to WaPo) Publius. In The Federalist Papers they advocated ratification of the Constitution, seemingly another object of the WaPo contempt.
The media blackout of what looks like an act of climate terrorism, continues.
Following the ridiculous “March for Science,” at which third-rate performers and copywriters pretended to be scientists, unidentified shooters open fire at the office of Dr. John Christy. Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (who both work in the same building) are two of the prominent scientists who developed measurement methodology and have been maintaining the only truly global temperatures record — the satellite temperatures dataset.
“Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.”
“Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a ‘random shooting’. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be ‘random’ occurrence.”
Belgian 5.7 millimeter cartridges can be only 5.7x28mm military cartridges. This type of cartridges was introduced relatively recently, and the weapons that use it are rare and expensive. Dr. John Christy testified before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the hearing Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method on March 29, 2017. This shooting is an act of intimidation and retaliation against a witness, as well as an attack on the national scientific potential. Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy maintain satellite temperature record, causing much consternation to climate alarmists.
A new letter (1) from putative scientists calling for persecution of climate dissenters is posted (2) by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and is addressed to the NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The letter is titled “Pursue ExxonMobil Investigation to the Fullest Extent of the Law,” but the word “investigation” in it stands for “punishment“, as seen from the following quote:
“We encourage you to pursue your investigation to the fullest extent of the law in order to uncover any past wrongdoing and deter future misconduct.“
Listed below are 15 lies in this NYT article . This is after the article was corrected on March 4, 2017, two days after it was originally published.
The article’s title is: “Top Trump Advisers Are Split on Paris Agreement on Climate Change”
Lie #1. Trump advisors are not split on the Paris agreement. The U.S. is not a part of the Paris agreement, because this agreement has not been ratified by the Senate. All parties of the Paris agreement knew that Obama’s signature did not bind the U.S. Whether the Trump administration repudiates or just ignores that agreement is hairsplitting. Besides, having different opinions is normal. Only Obama’s administration was a single-opinion government. Next: Continue reading How many Lies can one New York Times Article Contain?→
A new and disturbing connection between lawless MedSocCon and criminal EPA human tests is uncovered. #1 on the list of members of the MedSocCon Steering Committee is David Blaine Peden, Director of the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma, and Lung Biology at the University of North Carolina. The UNC facility played a central role in the EPA’s illegal experiments on human subjects. Mr. Peden took part, and may have even supervised, some of these experiments. In particular, he participated in the CAPTAIN study, which was described as follows:
“EPA’s ongoing CAPTAIN study imposes a risk of immediate death from an acute exposure to PM2.5” (The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF , September 2012)
Peden’s name also appeared eleven times in the unrelated legal memorandum by E&E Legal (May 2015), as: “David Peden has received $2.5 million in grants from the EPA, NIH and NSF,” and, “He is the PI or Project Leader of EPA, NIH and NSF grants totaling $2.5 million in direct costs focused on the effect of controlled exposures of pollutants to normal and susceptible populations”
Harvard alumni know witch hunts! I’m not talking about Al Gore and Barack Obama here. Not even Maura Healey, the Massachusetts Attorney General. In 1692, exactly 300 years before the Clinton-Gore team won the presidential election, more than a hundred men, women, and girls were tried and convicted of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts. Around 20 of them were executed. The majority of the trial judges were Harvard College alumni. Continue reading Next on the Wall of Shame: Harvard University→
MedSocConwas funded and launched by many of the same climate alarmism groups that were linked to the EPA in 2004-2012, when it was conducting outrageous experiments on human subjects. Those EPA human tests (see epahumantesting.com) included feeding diesel engine exhaust voided of carbon monoxide into the lungs of “volunteers,” many of whom were old and/or suffered from asthma or heart diseases – the same population groups that are being targeted by MedSocCon now. Worse than the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments, those EPA tests were conducted with no medical or health care purpose or justification. Continue reading MedSocCon, EPA Human Experiments, and Climate Alarmism→
Correction to my essay in WUWT, Is Climate Alarmism Governance at War with the USA?: the likely time when hostile activities of the governing body of climate alarmism hypothetically rose to the level of war is 2011-2013, about a year and a half later than written in the article. Thanks to Hilary Ostrov for reminding me of the relevant facts.
This is a summary of When Silicon Valley Went Off the Cliff, focusing on connections and parallels between the short lived “ban alarmism” and climate alarmism. From January 28 through February 8, a number of Silicon Valley and Washington state corporate executives participated in an attempt to topple President Trump, orchestrated by the Left after President Trump signed the original order, Executive Order No. 13769 Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States on January 27. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson, one of the Attorneys General United for Clean Power, filed a stinky lawsuit against President Trump and succeeded to halt implementation of the Executive order. 129 corporations, who hold monopolies in Internet search, “social media,” TV and movie streaming, as well as other markets for speech and press, filed an Amici Brief supporting the rogue Attorney General against the President. Their reaction to the Executive order was so out of proportion that an analogy with climate alarmism immediately sprung to mind. Here, I do not recite the original Executive order because I expect that readers did not trust to the Fake Stream Media reporting about it.
Website medsocietiesforclimatehealth.org, owned by a previously unknown group called the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health (“MedSocCon”), published a number of irresponsible and misinforming posters, statements, “reports,” and other materials. These materials teach doctors that certain illnesses are caused or aggravated by “climate change” and/or “global warming,” which are, according to the same materials, caused by combustion of fossil fuels. Posters and talking points for communication with patients tell the patients to “vote for elected leaders that will act to cut climate pollution.” These materials also instruct doctors to give wrong advice to their patients, both adults and children. For example, a poster for children speaks directly to kids (over the heads of their parents) and tells them to bike to school. Dangers and high fatality rates of biking compared with driving are ignored. A “Heart Health” poster advises heart patients to replace their car trips with biking and walking. Continue reading Climatist Consortium Against Human Health→
Barack and Michelle Obama have inked a $65 million deal for their memoirs (two books) with publisher, Penguin Random House. This publishing house is jointly owned by Bertelsmann Foundation (Germany) and Pearson PLC (UK). Bertelsmann Foundation, owning 53% in the joint venture, is not a commercial enterprise, but a politically engaged entity. Continue reading Obama Got $65 Million from Foreign Publishers→
The so-called “climate science” is based on the output of extremely complex computer climate models that cannot be understood by humans. Even worse, these models are incorrect because they contradict well-known principles of mathematics and the information theory. Other important points:
Computers are built around silicon chips.
Silicon (in the form of silicon oxides) is the main component of ordinary stones and rocks.
Silicon chip output is interpreted by so-called “climate scientists” as the prophecy of future climate changes for decades, hundreds, and thousands of years into the future. Prophesies that were made 20-30 years ago have already been shown false.
“Climate scientists” form a closed cast that claims nobody else can understand their “science,” including famous physicists and mathematicians. Very few of these “climate scientists” have scientific achievements outside of the “climate science” or related environmentalist frauds. These “climate scientists” and their political/financial sponsors have persecuted dissenters and have used government power to do so.
These “climate scientists” are not scientists or even ordinary frauds, but the priests and shamans of the climate cult.
The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down. The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature. Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference ). The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature. (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.) The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths. I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions. After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand . The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around. Continue reading “Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)→
This is an admission from NY Times on February 6: Democratic Party operatives and democratic attorney generals and governors do not know the differences between their roles. Per admission, democratic attorney generals and governors are Democratic Party operatives appointed to the positions where they benefit other Democratic Party operatives and Democratic Party donors:
“In interviews, more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general, governors and party operatives detailed a week of frenzied litigation, late-night and early-morning phone calls and text messages, and strategies devised on airplanes and at sporting events. All told, Democrats say, the legal onslaught against Mr. Trump was a crystallizing moment for the party’s attorneys general — and a model for how to stall or unwind the administration policies they find most offensive.”
The long-observed phenomenon of newsmaking – where the media is creating events instead of reporting them – has long been in existence.
In a recent example, a team of Democrat staffers and journalists launched a national campaign against elected Republican Congress attempting to hit them where it hurts – in their states and electoral districts. The gist of the campaign is to appear as members of a grassroots movement of dissatisfied citizens, rather than a Democrat-organized attack. Examples from the campaign guide (bold font is original; red highlighting is mine): Continue reading When newsmakers talk of “GOP’s delusions”→
The fake news networks (FNN) widely reported a demonstration of about 150 alleged tech workers against President Trump in connection to the immigration order. The photos from the demonstration show massive presence of UNITE HERE! – an extremist union whose captive membership consists mostly of unqualified workers.
I appreciate the sacrifice of these tech workers (if there are any; see the fake scientists demonstration) for the sake of profits of their employers who advocate unrestricted immigration from low-wage countries that replace American tech workers.
“In 1966, [Barbara] Ward gave a lecture, Space Ship Earth, in which she argued that mankind’s survival depended on developing a government of the world. The longevity of China’s government, Mao being the latest dynasty, demonstrated that world government was possible. If two thousand years of rule can work for twenty-five per cent of the world’s population, ‘we can hardly argue that the task of government becomes a priori impossible simply because the remaining three-quarters are added’, Ward argued.” (Kindle Locations 1744-1748)
“The FTC’s complaint alleges that OMICS Group, Inc., along with two affiliated companies and their president and director, Srinubabu Gedela, claim that their journals follow rigorous peer-review practices and have editorial boards made up of prominent academics. In reality, many articles are published with little to no peer review and numerous individuals represented to be editors have not agreed to be affiliated with the journals.” – from its press release on August 26, 2016.
These alleged crimes of OMICS Group sound very much like actions of IPCC and the Cambridge University Press, publishing IPCC reports. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it?
Silicon Valley consists from a large number of individuals with very similar professional backgrounds and a small pool of knowledge. Communication in such groups tends to reinforce their preconceived notions. Another place with this social phenomenon is Hollywood.
The psychological types dominating these places might be totally opposite – egocentric actors and actresses in Hollywood vs introvert computer professionals in Silicon Valley (sorry for the stereotypes) – but their effect might be the same: discounting opinions of outsiders, even on subjects in which those outsiders have interest, knowledge, and experience.
Privileged (in comparison with the manufacturing, energy, and other basic industries) political status of the software industry, also similar to that of Hollywood.
Recent influx of “content creators” with hard left views.
Do you know that the Hammer of Witches has been peer reviewed?
In or around 1487, the theological faculty of the University of Cologne peer reviewed the Hammer of Witches (the quoted edition is Mackay, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Cambridge University Press(1)):
“The proceedings are then carried out under the careful guidance of Lambertus de Monte, the head of the theological faculty of the University of Cologne, who first states his own approval of the questions to be approved, and is then followed with greater or lesser enthusiasm by other members of the faculty who were present. The proceedings were based on the faculty members’ prior reading of the work.” (p. 9)
The Hammer of Witches “educated” its readers on the presumed witchcraft and encouraged them to take action against alleged witches. Among other things, it accused the supposed witches of causing what is currently called extreme weather events: Continue reading Peer Review of “Weather Cooking”→
At this time, there are two viable applications for the photovoltaic solar power:
Off the grid energy supply for the least developed 3rd world countries.
Emergency backup power supply for the US households. Notice that the rooftop solar, promoted using fraudulent feed-in tariffs, are designed to shut off in time of power failure, rather than to provide backup.
Photovoltaic solar has a unique advantage of being down-scalable almost infinitely.
June 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal. This historical document, signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …
Yesterday, while visiting the TPPF’s Policy Orientation conference, I learned of a highly unusual Oil and Natural Gas Information Collection Request, issued by the EPA to owners and operators of practically all oils & gas production wells in December 2016. Continue reading EPA tries to do Maximum Damage in Three Months→