“Americans love the free and open Internet. We relish our freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, both at home and abroad. So it is sad to witness the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control.
It shouldn’t be this way. For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a ‘vibrant and competitive free market . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’ And dating back to the Clinton Administration, every FCC Chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”
“But today, the FCC abandons those policies. … It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct … . So why is the FCC changing course? Why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? … We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told us to do so.”
“The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” Continue reading Net Neutrality Realism→
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the American decision to scrap the Paris agreement “deplorable”. She repeated the same word that Hillary had used in reference to the Trump voters. Why did not Merkel call us untermensch, as her predecessor used to do when most of the today’s European Union had been “united” under Germany?
We live in the time of a media bubble, and an academic bubble. They are going to burst like stock market bubbles do. Continue reading Notes 2017→
Google unfairly promotes climate alarmist websites and punishes climate realist ones. The table shows that more external domains link to wattsupwiththat.com than to any of the four “Google darlings,” that make the first page in the results for ‘climate change’ (no quotes) search. Continue reading Google Search Engine of Climate Alarmism→
The New York Times has exhibited its scientific ignorance again. This time, it republished a tweet from DPRK News Service accusing the American military of “near total ignorance of ballistic science.” Fortunately, DPRK News Service is a parody Twitter account, so this case received some publicity.
This case is not just funny. It demonstrates that the New York Times cannot distinguish a fake news service from a real one. Not surprisingly, it regularly publishes fake news. This case also shows the scientific illiteracy and obscurantism of the formerly mainstream media and its readiness to repeat any claims about science, as long as they fulfill their ideological needs. Their claims of the Trump administration’s “ignorance of climate science” are similarly based on a hoax (fraud, to be accurate).
It is hard to dispute that today’s political polarization is unprecedented since the Civil War. I think it has been caused by three tightly linked developments: a) the radical Left takeover of the liberal establishment and Democratic party; b) the radicalized lib/Dem establishment takeover of the media, academia, government, nonprofit sector, and most academic institutions; and c) foreign interference aiding and egging on the lib/Dem establishment. Continue reading >
Charlie Munger (Warren Buffet’s #2) on Al Gore: “not very smart,” “an idiot,” “obsessed with global warming.” Despite that, he was making hundreds of millions of dollars annually by investing in companies that (in Gore’s mind) were not emitting CO2. Continue reading ‘Climate Deniers’ Pop up Everywhere→
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)): Continue reading Peer Review of “Weather Cooking”→
From today’s 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision: “We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.”
The president’s authority is defined in the Constitution. It is not delegated by Congress.
“In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority …”
The president exercises authority he has under the Constitution. And does the Court really want the entry of 180 million nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen?
Executive Order 13780 is a softened version of Executive Order 13769, which had been illegally stricken down by the same Court.
2017-06-26 Update: the Supreme Court unanimously confirms the Travel Ban.
“A second marked characteristic of the Liberal in debate with the conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about . Arguments based on fact are especially to be avoided. Many people shrink from arguments over facts because facts are tedious , because they require a formal familiarity with the subject under discussion , and because they can be ideologically dislocative . Many Liberals accept their opinions , ideas , and evaluations as others accept revealed truths , and the facts are presumed to conform to the doctrines , as any dutiful fact will ; so why discuss the fact?” (Kindle Locations 522-527).
Intentionally misleading. Water is human drink, but people still die in floods.
You drown when concentration of water around you is 100%. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 is less than 0.05%. Everything becomes harmful when there is too much of it, but the current and foreseeable concentrations of CO2 are beneficial, not harmful. Continue reading Reddit Debate about Brief SOS→
Ezra Klein is the Editor-in-Chief of Vox, founder of JournoList, contributor to WaPo, Bloomberg News, and MSNBC, and an all-around liberal icon. A few years ago he said and wrote that the Constitution was written 100 years ago. This level of ignorance is expected from modern libs. What is surprising is that Mr. Klein has graduated from the University of California with a major in Political Science! If the lib icons have no idea about the subjects they supposedly studied, is it any surprise that they know nothing about physics, biology, and engineering?
The main point of the essay Renounce Climate Alarmism! published in WUWT is that the Trump Administration should renounce climate alarmism entirely, rather than fighting each regulation, executive order, and other visible consequences of it.
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. Continue reading Thoughts on Handling Conflicts of Interest→
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 had been a regular NYT climate alarmist. 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→
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 from their website evidence of “financial support” to their satellite marches, either 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 that’s supported by a formerly respectable media. That case clearly shows the 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 opened 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.”
A new letter (1) from putative scientists calling for the 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?→