Thursday, April 19, 2018

USA news on Youtube Apr 19 2018

97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree

"97 percent of climate scientists agree: Humans are causing global warming."

It's one of the most famous statistics in all of science: That experts, the people who

know the most about Earth's climate, agree–almost universally–that humans are warming the

planet.

Where does this 97% number come from?

The most famous source of the 97% agreement comes from a study in 2013 by Australian scientist

John Cook.

He looked at almost 4,000 scientific papers that made some statement about whether humans

were the main cause of climate change.

And 97% of those papers agreed with the consensus.

To make sure nothing was misinterpreted, he also asked scientists to rate the views of

their own papers, and they found the same 97% agreement.

It shouldn't surprise you to learn that people have attacked this study, saying its

methods were wrong, and that it miscounted things.

But even if we ignore Cook's study, turns out lots of other people have looked at this

question and found a similar answer.

Between 90-100% of experts agree the climate is changing, Earth is getting

warmer, and we're responsible for a lot of it.

What does it mean to measure consensus?

First, you identify the experts.

In this case, the experts are thousands of scientists who study climate and publish their

work in peer-reviewed journals.

Peer review means that every finding that's published is analyzed by people working in

the same field, people who really know what they're talking about.

It's not flawless.

Mistakes occasionally happen, but this system is built to correct those mistakes, and it's

by far the best process humans have ever come up with for doing good science.

Once we find this group of experts, we analyze their opinion: for or against a particular

idea.

Sometimes this is done by studying what scientists have written in their papers.

Other times scientists are surveyed directly.

This can even be done by listening to what scientists say in public.

Now some scientists don't explicitly express an opinion either way.

They're not included in the analysis.

Consensus is the fraction who support an idea divided by the sum of those who support plus

those who reject the idea.

All these different methods have ended up with the same conclusion: The people who know

the most almost universally agree about what's causing global warming.

But if you ask everyday people what they think the consensus is, they guess that only 55%

of climate scientists agree.

That's way off from what experts actually think.

Why does this gap exist?

Because–surprise!–there are people out there who spend a lot of money and effort

manufacturing doubt.

A big argument among critics of the 97% agreement is that in a lot of research papers, scientists

never specifically write "humans are causing most global warming".

These papers are usually excluded from studies about consensus, because they don't give

a position either way.

People draw different conclusions from this.

Some say not giving a position is exactly what you'd expect from scientists who agree

that something's basically settled, like how physicists don't write "gravity is

real" in every single paper, biologists aren't regularly citing Darwin and natural

selection.

They're accepted as true.

But critics of global warming science claim that any scientist who doesn't specifically

say in every paper that they agree with the consensus, should be counted as uncertain,

or even counted as rejecting it.

And this is a very strange claim to make, that any climate scientist who doesn't write

"I believe that humans are the main cause of global warming" is actually uncertain

or doesn't believe that humans are the main cause of global warming.

To show you why this is flawed, let's apply the same logic to another scientific idea.

Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's crust is made up of several large chunks that

move over time, and that new crust is made at some places and eaten up at others.

Not a controversial idea today, but you might be surprised to learn that before the 1950s

and 60s, most scientists didn't accept it.

Researchers looked at recent geology papers using the same criteria the critics of global

warming science claim should be used on climate consensus: That any paper that doesn't explicitly

state that "plate tectonics is real" should be counted as uncertain, or as rejecting it.

Turns out, not one single paper, out of hundreds, specifically endorsed the theory of plate

tectonics.

So clearly, plate tectonics is a hoax?

Doubt about what's causing climate change really only exists among people who… how

do i put this… aren't experts.

And that's a big problem, because when we think scientists are divided on an issue,

we're less likely to think the issue is a problem.

This also means if more people understood how much agreement there really is about humans

causing climate change, we could start paying attention to more important questions like

"what do we do about it?"

People sometimes say that science doesn't work by consensus, or by agreement, and that

every truth must be decided by experiment.

But this is wrong.

Consensus, or agreement, is a hugely important part of science.

When scientists do experiments, they don't repeat or re-establish every single bit of

knowledge that got them to that point.

They, and I hope we, trust in the process of science.

In every field, there are things that are well-enough proven, that are agreed upon,

and these are where scientists start from to journey out into what's actually unknown.

And when it comes to the science of global warming and climate change, experts agree

overwhelmingly on the cause.

maybe it's time we accept the consensus, I think it's time we start talking about

what's really important.

That's why I'm excited today to announce a new project here on YouTube, one I've

been working on for most of the last year.

It's a new channel dedicated to stories about climate change and climate science,

called Hot Mess.

Have a look:

It's brought to you by the same amazing people that make these awesome videos here

on It's Okay To Be Smart, along with a few new faces

Hot Mess is going to be the best channel on YouTube for stories about our planet's changing

climate.

I know that's something that a lot of you care about.

So come join us over at Hot Mess.

Stay Curious.

For more infomation >> 97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree - Duration: 6:55.

-------------------------------------------

Is Trey Gowdy Running for Speaker of the House? - Duration: 10:31.

Is Trey Gowdy Running for Speaker of the House?

Trey Gowdy sent out a cryptic message yesterday that has a few people shaking their heads.

More than a few echoed the sentiments of Slim Pickens when he uttered his famous question,

"What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here?"

While commenting on the recent announcement by House Speaker Paul Ryan that he will not

be seeking re-election and will be leaving Congress, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) may have

dropped a hint that he could very well be thinking of taking the reins of the Speakership.

The news may have people pretty perplexed, because Gowdy has also announced that he is

leaving Congress for the private sector following the end of his current term.

As the Daily Caller reports, Gowdy noted the Constitution's allowance for non-Congressmen

to fill the role as Speaker.

The Caller writes that the "Constitution dictates 'the House of Representatives shall

choose their Speaker and other Officers,' but it does not stipulate that you have to

be a sitting member of Congress to run for the leadership position."

Gowdy had effusive praise for Ryan and said that for those who have been arm chair quarterbacks

in the past few years, it was their time to consider stepping up.

"To those outside of Congress who always seemed to have a better idea or a smarter

strategy, you do not have to be a member of the House to be Speaker of the House and hence,

now is your chance to run for Speaker."

Was Gowdy also including himself in that?

The question was posed to Gowdy's office and the Caller got a reply from an official

who said, "not a chance."

Still, it does beg the question… who was he talking about?

Speaker of the House certainly is a tough job, and I can get that he's standing up

for his friend, Paul Ryan, but isn't that why you put yourself into the arena in the

first place?

Must you always abandon principles for the sake of expediency and corporate donations

when you get to Washington?

Let's hope a more principled speaker — no matter who he or she is — will take the

reigns and do the bidding of the American people and not big corporations and big government.

What do

you think?

For more infomation >> Is Trey Gowdy Running for Speaker of the House? - Duration: 10:31.

-------------------------------------------

Jeff Session's Massive Mistake Just Gave Illegal Aliens a 'Get Out of Jail Free' Card - Duration: 10:31.

Jeff Session's Massive Mistake Just Gave Illegal Aliens a 'Get Out of Jail Free'

Card

Embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions has just screwed up what was widely seen as "an

easy slam dunk" for the Trump administration.

Does he wake up every morning and take stupid pills or is the former senator from Alabama

really just that dumb?

By bumbling his way through a lawsuit with the city of Los Angeles, Mr. Sessions has

allowed a federal judge to decree that the DOJ can't factor sanctuary city policies

into decisions over how to award local police grants.

Here's the story from our friends at The Hill:

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real agreed with the city's argument that the Justice Department

was abusing its power in basing grant awards on whether a municipality's police force

cooperated with federal immigration officers.

The city sued over a grant program that helped local police departments hire more officers

to carry out community-oriented policing.

Thursday's court ruling is the latest blow to the Trump administration's efforts to

crackdown on sanctuary cities, which do not direct their local police forces to enforce

federal immigration law.

President Trump issued an executive order last year blocking sanctuary cities from receiving

certain federal funding.

San Fransisco sued over the order, and ultimately won its case.

California has emerged as one of the main adversaries of the Trump administration's

immigration policies.

Sessions announced last month that the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state

over its immigration policies.

The lawsuit aims to block three sanctuary laws the state's legislature passed last

year.

The DOJ argues that the laws are designed to intentionally obstruct and discriminate

against the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, sadly, has committed a long laundry list of mistakes

since occupying his current post.

From failing to prosecute "Crooked" Hillary Clinton to recusing himself from the Russia

probe, village idiot Sessions has made it very difficult for President Trump and his

agenda to make headway on some important fronts.

And with the America people tiring of his incompetency, it's only a matter of time

before he goes the way of the Dodo bird.

Who would you like to see replace

Sessions

as AG?

For more infomation >> Jeff Session's Massive Mistake Just Gave Illegal Aliens a 'Get Out of Jail Free' Card - Duration: 10:31.

-------------------------------------------

James Comey Is a Liar and Here's the 'Inconvenient Proof' - Duration: 10:31.

James Comey Is a Liar and Here's the 'Inconvenient Proof'

It was just a few months ago that the president exposed Mr. Comey for lying to Congress under

oath.

And friends, if you'll lie during your sworn testimony to elected officials, you'll lie

anywhere at anytime.

Here's the scoop from our friends at The Hill:

President Trump on Sunday accused former FBI Director James Comey of lying under oath during

questioning about anonymous sources.

"Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to [Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)] when asked 'have

you ever been an anonymous source… or known someone else to be an anonymous source…

?'" Trump wrote on Twitter.

"He said strongly 'never, no.'

He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends."

The president on Saturday accused Comey of "lies" and "leaks" related to former

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that he fired McCabe, accusing the bureau's

No. 2 official of leaking information to the media and deceiving congressional investigators.

The dismissal has roiled Washington, D.C., and a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary

Committee called for a hearing over the White House's attacks on the Department of Justice

and the FBI.

Trump fired Comey last May in a move that triggered the appointment of special counsel

Robert Mueller to investigate Russia's election meddling and possible ties between the Trump

campaign and Moscow.

Comey told a Senate panel last year that shortly after he was dismissed, he authorized "a

close friend" to leak the contents of a memo to the press in order to prompt a special

counsel investigation.

The truth is that these waters are so muddy, you can't see through the five feet to the

sandy river bottom.

It's lies on top of lies on top of more lies!

And it's not just coming from the blue side of the aisle, either.

Let's fact it: this is Washington and politics is a dirty game.

But to for Comey to call the president a liar, is well, the clearest example of the pot calling

the kettle black I've personally ever seen!

What do you think: is

James

Comey

a liar?

For more infomation >> James Comey Is a Liar and Here's the 'Inconvenient Proof' - Duration: 10:31.

-------------------------------------------

Congress DROPS NUKE On Hillary Clinton – It's All Over… - Duration: 14:30.

Congress DROPS NUKE On Hillary Clinton – It's All Over…

Hillary Clinton thought she was out of the woods when it came to being held responsible

for her numerous illegal acts of corruption, but she just learned the hard way from Congress

that she was dead wrong.

Fox News reported that Rep. Mark Meadows, head of the House Freedom Caucus, just sent

a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asking them to take a closer

look at emails and texts between demoted FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that

previously had been given to Congress.

In his letter to Rep. Trey Gowdy, Meadows wrote that recently uncovered documents "suggest

a concerning level of coordination between the Department of Justice and the FBI throughout

crucial moments of the investigation into [Hillary] Clinton's private email server."

This directly contradicts the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, who claimed

that the bureau and the DOJ did not coordinate on his July 2016 statement recommending Clinton

not be charged for keeping classified information on her personal email server.

"Given the tone of Director Comey's sworn testimony, and his stated intention to continue

to publicly speaking about the investigation in support of his new book," Meadows wrote,

"we believe it is important to further examine whether his previous statements before Congress

and the American people were misleading."

Meadows cited a July 1, 2016 text exchange between Strzok and Page in which they discussed

then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch's pledge to accept Comey's recommendations in the

email case.

"Timing looks like hell," Strzok wrote.

"Will appear choreographed.

All major news networks literally leading with 'AG to accept FBI [Director's] recommendation.'"

"Yeah, that is awful timing," Page answered.

"Nothing we can do about it."

"What I meant was," Strzok said, "did DOJ tell us yesterday they were doing this,

so [Comey] added that language."

"I think we had some warning of it.

I know they sent some statement to [Comey chief of staff James] Rybicki bc he called

andy [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe]," Page responded.

Meadows wrote that this exchange "raises concerns the FBI learned former Attorney General

Lynch would accept Director Comey's recommendation, leading him to add the 'no coordination'

language to his public comments on July 5th 2016.

These texts exchanged between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok also raise concerns DOJ sent

remarks related to the 'no coordination' language to James Rybicki, Director Comey's

former Chief of Staff."

Meadows went on to say that another document indicated that McCabe "reached out to ask

that we set up another DOJ/FBI meeting to discuss developments in MYE (midyear exam)."

MYE is code for the Clinton email investigation.

"It is very possible former Director Comey did not coordinate specifics of his statement

with the Deputy Attorney General [Sally Yates].

However, the documents suggest that at the staff-level, coordination on the Clinton MYE

investigation was frequent," Meadows wrote.

It seems like the walls may finally be closing in on Clinton!

SHARE this story if you think Hillary Clinton should be INVESTIGATED!

For more infomation >> Congress DROPS NUKE On Hillary Clinton – It's All Over… - Duration: 14:30.

-------------------------------------------

BREAKING Congress Just Made Hillary Rodham Clinton's Worst Nightmare a Reality - Duration: 14:30.

BREAKING Congress Just Made Hillary Rodham Clinton's Worst Nightmare a Reality

Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly in full panic mode today after a group of GOP congressmen

called for a criminal investigation into her activities during the 2016 election.

Fox News reported that the Republican lawmakers sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department

and FBI calling for an investigation into Clinton as well as former bureau boss James

Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, and ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., teamed up with ten other congressmen to demand a probe into

potential violations that cover everything from the handling of the Clinton email probe

to the anti-Trump dossier's funding to the Uranium One controversy.

They called for the investigation in a letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI

Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney John Huber.

In the letter, the lawmakers slammed the "dissimilar degrees of zealousness" in the investigations

into Clinton and Trump campaign associates.

"Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same

as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined

below are vetted appropriately," they wrote.

The letter named FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as others who should be investigated.

When it came to Clinton, the lawmakers expressed concerns that the lawyer representing her

2016 campaign paid the firm behind the research that led to the controversial anti-Trump dossier.

The letter alleged that Clinton's campaign disguised the payments by not properly disclosing

them to the Federal Election Commission.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton's spokesman immediately fired back by calling the letter "pathetic"

and saying it was politically motivated.

"House Republicans have seen the numbers and are running scared as we head into midterm

season.

They should focus on working for the people they are asking to reelect them, not do Trump's

bidding.

It's pathetic," Nick Merrill said.

For more infomation >> BREAKING Congress Just Made Hillary Rodham Clinton's Worst Nightmare a Reality - Duration: 14:30.

-------------------------------------------

TRUMP SENDS IN THE FEDS – 225 Illegals Arrested - Duration: 14:31.

TRUMP SENDS IN THE FEDS – 225 Illegals Arrested

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) just announced that they have arrested 225

illegal aliens in New York state as part of a six day operation "Operation Keep Safe."

Fox News reported that the illegal aliens were arrested throughout New York City, Long

Island, and the Hudson Valley.

Over 180 of the arrested illegal immigrants had previous criminal convictions or had criminal

charges pending, and over 80 of them had been issued a final order of removal and either

failed to leave the U.S. voluntarily or been deported and returned illegally.

Many of the detained illegal aliens had prior felony convictions for serious or violent

offenses, including child sex crimes, weapons charges and assault, or had past convictions

for significant or multiple misdemeanors.

New York is considered a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants as liberal lawmakers try

to hinder ICE officials at every turn.

Top New York City police official Oleg Chernyavsky recently said that over 1,500 requests from

ICE to detain illegal immigrants for up to 48 hours were ignored last year.

Though ICE officials celebrated the success of this new operation, they also slammed liberal

politicians in New York for trying to hinder the effectiveness of immigration control and

allow dangerous illegal immigrants "prey on the people in their communities.

"ICE continues to face significant obstacles with policies created by local officials which

hinder cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement.

Yet, with the tireless efforts of the men and women of ICE, this operation was a great

success," said Thomas R. Decker, field office director for ERO New York.

"The fact is that a so-called 'sanctuary city' does not only provide refuge to those

who are here against immigration law, but also provides protections for criminal aliens

who prey on the people in their own communities by committing crimes at all levels."

SHARE this story if you support Donald Trump's crackdown

on

illegal immigration!

No comments:

Post a Comment