Mark’s Nature Trick


NSIDC Turning tricks?

Tony Heller's avatarReal Climate Science

NSIDC shows Greenland melting out of control, far above average this summer.

ScreenHunter_1674 Aug. 04 23.45Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

This makes no sense, because NCEP maps have showed Greenland temperatures well below normal this summer.

Now lets look at the DMI graph of the same thing. DMI shows Greenland melting well below normal this summer.

ScreenHunter_1675 Aug. 04 23.46

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

How did Mark Serreze’s NSIDC team pull off their Greenland nature trick?  They included the cold 1980’s in their average, which was the coldest decade on record in that region.

ScreenHunter_1676 Aug. 04 23.52

There was essentially no melting that decade, which dragged the mean line way down. More evidence of why DMI is a better reference than NSIDC. DMI doesn’t have a global warming agenda. The NSIDC graph is extremely misleading, no doubt by design.

h/t to Chris Beal

View original post

Mark’s Nature Trick (Part 2)


What else can they do they don’t have science or logic on their side!

Tony Heller's avatarReal Climate Science

Mark Serreze calls me “breathtakingly ignorant.”

The red circle shows the year when NSIDC starts their Arctic sea ice graphs. The mother of all cherry picks.

ScreenHunter_1693 Aug. 05 08.54

View original post

State Universities are now looking oversea for studens with “MONEY” and forgeting their “state” students for whom the colleges were fromed!


Are you losing your state university? Illinois has

Re-Post from The American Thinker By James Longstreet August 4, 2014
 

The big business of education is forever altering the state university systems around the country.  They have become vessels of profit and enrichment for some, and are steadily distancing themselves from the citizenry of the home state.

Hiding behind diversity and internationalism, universities have moved to out of state students and ultimately the international student.  Left out are the in-state students looking for a reasonable cost of a college education from their own state university.

Why does college cost so much?  Why does a professor who gave a lecture to a 200 seat hall ten years ago cost so much more to dispense the same knowledge today?  Most of college-dispensed knowledge is static.  Math, language, economics, literature, etc change little from decade to decade.  Except for the sciences, essentially the base product remains the same.

So why does college cost so much?  Part of the answer is that in-state slots are fewer and fewer, by design. Those who do not get the tuition break for in-state residence must go elsewhere at higher costs.  The result being that a student who couldn’t get into his state university A now pays out of state tuition to state university B.  The student who resides in-state B and couldn’t get into his university now becomes an out of state student at university A.  The money game is easy to see.  Both universities, A and B, get more money.

The out of state game has now morphed to the out of country game.  It is a gold mine for universities and a blatant displacement of in-state candidates for enrollment.

Take the University of Illinois for example.  The Chicago Tribune reports that Chinese students alone will make up 10% of this year’s freshman class.  Their tuition is nearly double that of a resident of the state.  It costs an Illinois student about $35,000 each year for tuition, room and board, fees and books at the U of I. The university charges foreign students $52,000 for the same tuition, room and board, books and fees.

The resident student is being carved from the enrollments for the benefit of the money-hungry administrators.  The Tribune notes that last year the University of Illinois reaped $166 million from international students.  Does anyone really believe that enrollment policies at this school are about internationalism?  That dollar amount has tripled over the past five years.  73% of the graduating class is in-state.  A decade ago it was 90%.  Illinois State Rep. Mike Tryon, noted that the state is spending billions on universities, but the money goes to pensions and not into the classrooms.

Currently only the University of Southern California, a private school, has more international students than the University of Illinois, but they are a private institution with every right to manage their admissions policies

Why do the citizens of Illinois put up with this?  In May of 2006, “the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, pulled the plug on plans to increase its proportion of out-of-state enrollment from the (then) current 10% to 15% of the freshman class because the reaction was so negative.”  But today, 27% of the graduates are out of state or out of country and 10% of the incoming class is from China alone!  Have the wishes of the citizens been served?

Brought to you by the same school system that hired Bill Ayers.  And don’t forget, this is all for the kids and the students.  Except the kids are the heirs of the self-enriching pensioned administrators, and a good portion of the students go back to their home country.  Diversity and internationalism are fuzzy and good, especially when they double the tuition revenue stream to meet the overpromised and exorbitant pension promises passed quietly in dark rooms by nameless people years ago.

The Daily Beast: On Border, A Huge Win for the Right


I agree since Obama does not actually want an immigration bill, he is just playing with the Latins’ and his base of progressives! Now if he doesn’t use the executive order like he threatened he will lose face with La Raza Unida!

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

And such a lovely, friendly article, too.

Don’t be confused about what happened in the House of Representatives on Friday: It was a huge win for the far right, a major victory for Ted Cruz, an embarrassment for John Boehner, and, potentially, a pivotal moment that will make future dealings between the White House and congressional Republicans, if you can possibly believe it, far worse than they’ve been already.

What happened, as you probably know, is that Boehner had a bill ready to go Thursday, one he thought he had the votes to pass. Then Cruz rounded up some of the far-right members of the House GOP caucus and plotted a revolt. Boehner saw that his bill wasn’t going to pass and pulled it. Then, on Friday, Boehner and his leadership team sat down with these right-wingers and made a series of concessions to them.

It’s important to wrap your…

View original post 172 more words

Captured Hamas Combat Manual Explains Benefits of Human Shields


HAMAS needs to be wiped out — period the end!

EPA: The Science of Scam?


Scam, Fraud and Deceit are all part of NASA, NOAA, EPA and the IRS

John Fund: Congress Should Censure Obama, Not Impeach


A great idea since the senate is controlled by Obama impeachment is a loser, we don’t have 60 votes!

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

Impeaching President Barack Obama should not be on the political agenda, but the president should be formally censured by Congress for his abuse of power and refusal to faithfully execute the laws according to his oath of office, said John Fund.

In a column for National Review Online, the national-affairs correspondent argues that the House should focus on developing and passing a unicameral resolution to identify and condemn Obama’s conduct in office, instead of a lawsuit which could take years to resolve.

“Impeachment is akin to detonating a nuclear weapon on the field of politics,” Fund wrote, noting that public opinion polls show that roughly two-thirds of Americans are not in favor of impeachment, despite a full 45 percent believing he has abused his powers as president— behavior which, by definition, is sufficient for impeachment.

“I’ve always felt that we need a middle path between routine political pummeling and…

View original post 182 more words

Hamas wins — Israel IDF loses its first war!


Israel-Hamas talks to open in Cairo after 72-hour ceasefire. Netanyahu faces credibility gap at home
Re-Post from DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis August 5, 2014, 8:33 AM (IDT)
Where does the Gaza operation go now?

Where does the Gaza operation go now?
Israel and a Palestinian delegation to talks in Cairo, including Hamas, were due to start observing a 72-hour ceasefire in the Gaza Strip starting Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 8 a.m., to be followed by negotiations under Egyptian aegis for a long-term cessation of hostilities.

This decision flies in the face of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s solemn pledge 48 hours earlier to continue Operation Defensive Edge until Hamas and its terrorist allies stopped firing rockets (a massive barrage was fired up to five minutes to eight).
He stated that Israel was turning away from ceasefire accords, which Hamas had violated six times causing IDF fatalities, and reserving its military and diplomatic freedom of action to act solely in its own security interests. “No accommodation, only deterrence” was the motto of the moment Saturday night, Aug. 2.
Even as he spoke, the bulk of Israel’s ground troops were on their way out of the Gaza Strip. But he assured the public that they were regrouping and refreshing ranks for a new, offensive formation that would stand ready to cross back in a trice if necessary.

But already then, the prime minister had quietly conceded to the demands of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi and US Foreign Secretary John Kerry to withdraw IDF contingents from the Gaza Strip. This was in obedience to Hamas’ precondition for talks, following which Israeli envoys would present themselves in Cairo for indirect negotiations on a long-term accommodation with Hamas through Egyptian intermediaries.

The slogan designed for the goal of these talks was now: “Rehabilitation in exchange for demilitarization.”

By Monday, when the ceasefire deal was already in the bag, the prime minister, defense minister Moshe Ya’alon and a group of senior officers led by Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, met the community leaders of the 250,000 Israelis whose homes and lands abut the Gaza Strip. They promised the communities that, for the first time in 13 years, they would be safe from Palestinian rocket fire.
The IDF would build a new security fence enclosing Gaza like the barrier along the Egyptian border and instal a home guard system backed by electronic sensors and other gadgets in all their communities.
Doubters, who wondered how a fence would stop rockets and the underground terror tunnels burrowed surreptitiously under their homes, were not heeded. By then, tens of thousands of reservists called up for the Gaza war were being released and columns of tanks and heavy equipment were heading north.
The military traffic rolling away from the Gaza Strip was so heavy Monday night that the police issued a notice to civilian drivers using those roads.
When the 72-hour ceasefire was announced after midnight Monday, a “high-ranking Israel official” noted that if the ceasefire holds, an Israeli military presence in Gaza will not be necessary. He said Israel had upheld its commitment not to accept ceasefire deal with Hamas, so long as it was accompanied by preconditions and until the terror tunnels were dismantled. The 32nd tunnel was destroyed Monday night, he announced, and the work would continue henceforth on the Israeli side of the border.
A former National Security Adviser Gen (res) Giora Eiland, summed up the month-long Israeli military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip as a draw between the two adversaries, with neither side the winner. This judgment, shared by many military experts contradicted the way the operation’s outcome is presented by the prime minister and defense minister who directed it. They describe Hamas as reeling from the heavy damage the IDF wrought to its military machine and weakened enough to be finished off at the negotiating table in Cairo.

Israel reckons that around 50 percent of the 1,867 Gazans estimated killed and 9,500 injured in the operation were Hamas or Islamic Jihad fighters.
The damage was undoubtedly heavy, but still Hamas has come out of the Israeli offensive standing on its feet, an outcome that will have profound political and security ramifications upon and beyond the forthcoming Cairo negotiations.
The reality facing Israel’s war planners at home is also grim: For the first time, the country comes out of a major conflict with a domestic refugee problem.  Longtime inhabitants of the region around the Gazan border who have lost homes, property or livelihood have nothing to return to after the ceasefire.
There are no official figures for Israel’s internal refugee problem, but it is believed that up to half of the quarter of a million people inhabiting 57 communities, many of them kibbutzim and private farms, who fled during the hostilities, may refuse to return.

While many endured 13 years of on-and-off rocket fire, they are consumed by the dread of Hamas terrorists jumping out of tunnels in their fields, classrooms or kitchens.
They point to negative side of the IDF official statement: “We have destroyed all the tunnels we know about” as being far from an ironclad guarantee to have obliterated that menace. And the rockets never let up for a single day in the month-long IDF operation – 3,300 in all.

Israel’s first ghost villages are clearly visible to the enemy and no doubt chalked up on the credit side of the Hamas war ledger.

Haim Yelin, head of the Eshkol District Council said Monday that 75 percent of the frontline population has moved north. He said he believes the assurances he received from Netanyahu and Ya’alon that the IDF has solved the tunnel threat and would provide the communities with protection against new tunnels. But he said, people are no longer willing to live under the threat of terrorist rocket fire, which they don’t believe has been finally curbed.
This credibility gap is part of the general unease over the outcome of this long-delayed counter-terror operation. It started out with 86 percent of the population canvassed holding high hopes of curing the festering terrorist woe emanting from the Gaza Strip. But now, Israel’s leaders, no less than Hamas, face a rehabilitation challenge – not just the reconstruction of damaged businesses, farms and buildings, but also of faith in government.

Doctors Begin To Refuse Obamacare Patients


Free Health Care is never actually Free, someone has to pay!

A Trivial Proof That Mann-Made Global Warming Has Had No Impact On Sea Level


Hey this is way better than a couple of old tree ring samples!

Tony Heller's avatarReal Climate Science

This proof is so simple, that even a climate scientist couldn’t understand it.

Sea level at Manhattan has been rising at a steady rate since the start of records in the 1850’s. The rate of rise has not accelerated or decelerated over the past 160 years.

ScreenHunter_1667 Aug. 04 20.50

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php

The hockey stick doesn’t start until 1910, yet the sea level rise rate was essentially identical before and after the hockey stick. This tells us that there is no correlation between GISS temperatures and sea level. One station is adequate for this analysis, because melting glaciers would raise sea level more or less equally at all locations.

ScreenHunter_1668 Aug. 04 20.52

The graph below plots Manhattan sea level rise rates (9 year slope) vs. GISS  5 year mean global temperature anomaly. Again, there is no correlation between sea level rise rates and GISS temperatures. The fastest decline in sea level occurred near the highest temperature anomaly.

ScreenHunter_1669 Aug. 04 21.16

You may ask…

View original post 73 more words