Header image alt text

Chronicle of Change

Documenting the Real Change

  The New York Times reported today that they have discovered further disturbing ties between President Trump and Vladimir Putin:

“Yet another disturbing example of Donald Trump’s ties to Russia has been discovered. Anonymous sources have told the NY Times that they personally know someone who told them that there is a rumor that all of Donald Trump’s hotels serve Russian vodka. This is causing further chaos and possible cases of syphilis in the White House as the President’s staff was in crisis mode already attempting to respond to leaked information from unnamed intelligence officials who released a recording of Donald Trump from 1980. The White House has already admitted that, on the recording, Trump said that the Russian Olympic hockey team was “very good.” As the number of Russian ties to Donald Trump mount it is only a matter of time before he addresses the elephant in the room that is, as yet, only whispered about. Why does his daughter’s name contain within it the Russian name, Ivan? Or, even worse, is Ivanka a Russian name?”

It seems odd to even have to mention it but the satire light was lit for this post. The fact that it might even be conceivable that the once respected NY Times might consider such a thing shows how far the Gray Lady has fallen.

  The mainstream media has been calling foul on President Trump calling them out as “fake news.” What about the 1st Amendment? You can’t stifle free speech!! Even Captain Establishment, John McCain, has hinted that free speech was being threatened.

Let’s be clear about the 1st Amendment. Its protections are from government silencing anyone who wishes to speak their mind. It does not, however, end when that person speaks their piece. It continues on for all who wish to reply.

In this case the government is doing nothing to hinder CNN, NBC, and the rest of the leftist propaganda outlets from saying whatever they want. Once they say it, President Trump and the rest of us are just as free to say they are lying as they were to speak the lie.

Man-made Global Warming

Posted by GB on February 14, 2017
Posted in Uncategorized  | No Comments yet, please leave one

 

Riddle: Where is the only place catastrophic mad-made global warming exists?

Answer: In a computer.

 

 

 

Example #1

Following are some recent “adjustments” made to the software used by NOAA to create the US portion of their global temperature tracking. The transition to the new computer programming began in February of last year.  Old and new graphs for Maine, California, and Michigan are below. Old graph on the left, new graph on the right. Remember, this is the same data. Forty of the forty eight mainland states experienced similar “changes.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice any difference? With the same data, NOAA is now claiming a warming rate of 0.135F/decade, nearly double of what they were reporting for the same time period as recently as 2012.

If technical stuff makes your eyes glaze over you may want to move on to example #2 but the changes come from some basic differences in the new “software” which includes “revised station selection, homogenization, and gridding.” The change in “station selection” means ignoring the buoy readings (cooler) and choosing the intake readings on ships (warmer). The homogenization is a manual adjustment (faster warming of course) of temperature readings of the past to adjust for the urban heat island effect.

Example #2

In February, NOAA published the graph below showing “record heat” in the dark red areas, a large swath of it across Africa. While not record heat, South America shows temperatures as “much warmer than average.” Wow, pretty bad. The world is burning up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now check out this graph showing the gray areas labeled as “missing data.” Almost all of Africa which they claimed had “record heat” had no actual data. South America also listed as mainly “much warmer than average” also had no data. They just guessed or made it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, global warming is man-made. Just not the way they would like you to believe.

In 2006 current Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch received the votes of the following current U.S Senators in his confirmation to the 10th Circuit Court:

Patrick Leahy (VT), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patty Murray (WA), Ron Wyden (OR), Dick Durbin (IL), Jack Reed (RI), Bill Nelson (FL), Tom Carper (DE), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Maria Cantwell (WA), Bob Menendez (NJ), and last but not least, Chuck Schumer (NY)….. Democrats all. In addition he got the votes of then Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. He was confirmed unanimously, 96-0.

Something must have changed drastically. Within one hour of last night’s nomination Chuck Schumer began beating the drum saying, he had “serious doubts” over whether Gorsuch will be able to “vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans.”

“Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard,” Schumer said. “Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.”

This is yet another display of how it is always all politics for the left, substance be damned. He was good enough to be a unanimous choice back in 2006 but is now “outside the mainstream” and not be capable of being “independent?” Once again, those outside of the Blue Bubble will clearly see behind the curtain into the true nature of today’s Democrat Party.

In his acceptance speech Gorsuch has already distinguished himself by saying, “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”

This is probably what frightens Schumer et al the most. The fact that a judge could not be counted on to rule in a political way but would defer to what “the law demands” means that the power of the law would shift to the people’s representatives in Congress. The left simply cannot have that. Other than Barack Obama’s reelection, they have been crushed in election after election since 2008. They have lost 1042 seats at the federal and state levels as well as 12 governorships. They have been rejected at the polls time and time again so they must try to find other ways to rule against the will of the people. This leaves the courts and executive branch regulations. They are losing their grip on both of those as well.

Prepare for temper tantrums.