The Historic Magnitude of Trump’s Failure

Eric Zuesse

In order to understand the enormous magnitude of Trump’s failure (not merely of performance, but of his actual intentions), consider a poll by a top pollster, published on 18 November 2016, ten days after the U.S. Presidential election, and headlined “Support for Trump Fed by Near-Universal Frustration that Government Ignores the People”:

A remarkable nine-in-ten voters agreed that ‘Elected officials think more about the interests of their campaign donors than the common good of the people.’ …

This profound dissatisfaction with government has reached new heights in response to longstanding trend line questions. Asked whether government ‘is run for the benefit of all the people’ or is ‘pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves’ in the 1960s only a minority said that it was run by big interests. In recent years this number has risen to eight-in-ten. In the current study this leapt to an unprecedented 92 percent. …

“Trump effectively mirrored back to voters what they have been saying for years, that they feel like they are being ignored in a system dominated by special interests,” said PPC Director Steven Kull, who directed the survey. “That he said he was self-financing and was denounced by leaders in his own party, strengthened his claim that he was independent and capable of shaking up the system.”

Trump has stated, “We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not special interests.” And, “I am working for you.”

The full details from that stunning poll can be found here. If this isn’t a pre-revolutionary electorate being shown there, then what possibly could be?

Quotations are cited there from Trump when he was campaigning for the Presidency, such as:

We are fighting for every citizen that believes that

government should serve the people, not the donors

and not special interests.

The only special interest I am beholden to is the

American people.

I am self‐funding my campaign and therefore I will

not be controlled by the donors, special interest and

lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and

politicians for too long.

My pledge reads: “I’M WITH YOU –

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

Aren’t you tired of arrogant leaders who look down

on you, instead of serving and protecting you?

Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the

people I have met all across this nation that have

been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.

But not only did he appoint to his Administration billionaires and Goldman Sachs people and champions of privatizing government and cutting programs for the public while boosting programs for the most wasteful and destructive of all federal departments — the aggression department (euphemized as the ‘Defense’ Department), which is the only federal department so deeply corrupt that no accountants can be found who will certify its financial records — but he acknowledges that ‘maybe’ burning of fossil-fuels is heating the planet, even while he as President boosts burning of fossil fuels and shrinks government support of development of safer alternative energy-forms (which also are the high-tech energy future that, with Presidents like this, will be led by other countries, not the United States).

In other words: He won the White House by saying he sides with the public against the aristocrats, but as President he strongly sides with the aristocrats against the public

Impeaching him for the high crimes and misdemeanors that were involved with his having lied his way into the White House would be no solution, because he chose a Vice President who is as far-right as he is (and who would become President in his place), but blocking everything that Trump (or Pence) tries to ram through this far-right Congress might at least be effective as a holding-action until the entire elected personnel of this government, the White House and Congress, are replaced by new candidates who have only proven records (with complete tax-returns and speech-transcripts and emails) of courageous opposition (and that means losing some highly principled fights) against the billionaires who are destroying this country — the manipulators behind-the-scenes, in those “smoke-filled rooms” or otherwise. This would entail nearly a 100% House-cleaning. And Senate-cleaning. Perhaps a few people, such as Bernie Sanders (who has lost more than his share of gutsy fights), would be able to pass such stringent tests, but over 95% would certainly not.

Or, will the revolution instead be violent? How much angrier does the American public have to be in order for the revolution — peaceful or not — to occur? The answer to that question will determine whether it will be peaceful.

The American people are discovering the enemy, and it is their own government and the billionaires who are behind it passing around big bucks and abusing it in the name of “The People.”

Suckers no more, if it’s to be peaceful. But if, instead, the blind lead the sighted, it will be hell. In either case, clearly, the present course cannot be sustained much longer.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • ArtBell

    The people had their chance when Ron Paul was running for president but they ridiculed him.

    • Carl_Herman

      The .01% corporate media ridiculed Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich and anyone else daring to challenge the rogue state empire. Even then, polls of debates that seemed live showed these two won the debates (those results were Orwellian reversed in corporate media reporting).

      • I have made $104k in last 12 months by working on-line from my house a­­n­­d I did it by wor­king in my own time for few hours /day. I’m using a business model I found online and I am so thrilled that i earned so much money on the side. It’s beginner friendly a­­n­­d I am just so thankful that i found this. This is what i did… http://s.id/1W1

        • cettel

          Go to hell, spammer!!!

    • collectivist

      He deserves ridicule.

      • John Francis

        Why?

        • collectivist

          He’s a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian.

  • Shiggity

    I’ve been reading a lot about revolutions lately.

    The thing that almost always kicks them off is food shortages.

    • diogenes

      In England in 1932-33 the unemployed and many employed were seriously malnourished. 58% of inductees to the British army were turned away as stunted and physically incapable. Hunger was endemic, and the unemployed and the badly paid employed organized, marched and, when attacked by police (ordered to attack them) rioted. The British fleet mutinied and so did some police forces. (Funny how none of this comes up in college “history” classes.) And forced the government to rescind the “austerity” measures it had enacted to “balance the budget” by cutting unemployment relief rates by 25% in order to pay that money to investors in national bonds (the “national debt”). But the British had enough of a clue to know when their teeth were being kicked in. Thanks to TV, modern media, and public education, when you kick an American’s teeth in, he smiles and says “thank you.” But just like in America, it was a “left” (“Labor”) government that betrayed the poor to the rich and sent the police to attack them — making night raids on people’s homes, etc. Trump is an American innovation. Instead of a Judas “leftest” he’s a Judas “Populist Maverick.” That is, a hereditary real estate investor and slum lord. Which is why he loves Goldman Sachs just like Hillary. Hillary is an American example of a Judas “leftist,” but, poor lady, she didn’t get her chance. At least not yet.

  • Charlie Primero

    This guy’s failure to figure out that carbon taxes are a Wall Street fraud invalidates his opinions.

    • kimyo

      ‘sustainability’ is the ultimate trillion-dollar bridge to nowhere. (urgentboldfaceheadlinemode)we must start building it today, ‘for the children’ (even though we have no idea where to land the other end).

      first let’s figure out how we’re going to power snow plows, garbage trucks, school buses, agricultural/mining equipment. THEN we can start building.

    • centrino105

      Agreed Charlie! One of the main reasons I voted for Trump is because he rejects the man made global warming fraud.

      • collectivist

        Trump is the fraud of frauds.
        He’s fooled you, it seems.

        • collette.robert@yahoo.com

          Wouldn’t the fraud of frauds be something genuine?

          • collectivist

            Really?
            Yep. He’s got you.
            Poor baby.

        • Mike

          Poor little butthurt LIBBIE

  • awb22

    Eric, you’re right. Hillary would have been a much better choice. Idiot.

    • kimyo

      there never was a ‘choice’. each and every vote served only to maintain the fiction of electoral representation. each and every vote was for the deep state.

      • Eric Zuesse

        I agree.

        • awb22

          I disagree, zionist.

          • cettel

            Sanders would have been the choice, but the aristocracy blocked it. And what does zionism have to do with it?

      • diogenes

        There was a marginal choice, in Sanders, who was apparently a majority choice, at least among non-Elephant Puppet voters, and the system worked, the Donkey Head bureau of the system, under the command of Col. Hillary, worked to eliminate that marginal choice, such as it was, inadequate as it was.

        The Two Party system is a hoax. And the hoax runs Congress. But Congress is going to stop Trump and save America’s democracy. ROTFLOL.

        • awb22

          They are two sides of the same coin. There have been administrations which oppose the statists. Jackson is typically painted as on of the worst presidents in history, but he was effective. His portrait is hanging in Trump’s oval office. If we squander the best opportunity we have to counter the headlong rush to totalitariansim by not supporting this administration, it’s on us.

    • Carl_Herman

      I’m as hopeful as the next sucker, awb22. How many days in office will you give him to do something for justice? I say 100 is super generous. How about you?

  • Paulo e Nani
    • awb22

      Go to hell, spammer!

  • Will be seen in the future due to his role as flat earther in chief, much like with Bush, and whether the kids suing the feds over the issue of climate change are successful in their campaign or not. Flat earthers are the dumbest and/or most dangerous people on the planet today in the long term.

    • awb22

      Flat earther? Climate change is not settled science, period. I’m much more concerned about Fukashima causing an extinction level event, than global warming. Go hug a tree, and don’t forget to lock your SUV.

      • Of course it is to any and all able to understand it. Your ignorant bs is just an admission that you can’t. Go play in traffic

        • kimyo

          global warming is obvious/real/settled. well, that is unless you begin to examine the data: Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?

          Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

          “It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

          best 50 models. still lol’ing. 95% are wrong, in terms of antarctic sea ice.

          • Two Americas

            Not sure what you find so funny. Did you read that article? It does not seem that you did. Are you hoping others don’t actually read it either? How did you happen to stumble on to it?

            Glaciers melt, fresh water runs out on top of sea water, the area of ice expands. That is one possible explanation that is entirely insistent with general global warming.

            Why is this funny to you? Why are you trying to promote a particular agenda about this?

          • kimyo

            i do hope everyone reading this conversation reads that article.

            when your model disagrees with the observed data, it’s wrong. period.

            when your model cannot explain ‘the hiatus’, it’s wrong. period.

            Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot

            It’s a climate puzzle that has vexed scientists for more than a decade and added fuel to the arguments of those who insist man-made global warming is a myth.

            Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.

            skepticism is required. about economic models which tell us we must borrow more to prosper. about medical models which tell us we should put statins in the water supply. and, about climate models which fail to foresee INCREASED sea and land ice in antarctica or a 17 plus year long period of flat temperatures, in spite of ever increasing co2 levels.

            Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. Is global warming over?

            A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it’s been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.

            In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.

            why do i find this mockery of the scientific method funny? cause it is 2017 and feynman has been gone now a long time. long enough that today’s climate scientists have to scratch their heads when the data doesn’t agree with their ‘highly sophisticated’ models.

            perhaps you’re right though, this state of affairs is about as sad as i can imagine.

            let’s focus on real issues: fukushima, lead/mercury/fracking poisoning of our air and water. co2 emissions is not a real issue.

            bonus question: how is a carbon tax going to fix anything? do you have an example of a successful effort to reduce carbon emissions via taxation?

          • Two Americas

            when your model disagrees with the observed data, it’s wrong. period.

            The reality of global warming does not depend upon any modelling. You suggest otherwise. You are wrong, period.

            when your model cannot explain ‘the hiatus’, it’s wrong. period.

            There is no hiatus and you are using a notorious talking point. You are wrong, period.

            skepticism is required

            Skepticism is routinely applied by the researchers. You suggest otherwise. You are wrong, period.

            bonus question: how is a carbon tax going to fix anything? do you have an example of a successful effort to reduce carbon emissions via taxation?

            Bonus question: how the fck is “a carbon tax” relevant to anything?

            I said nothing about any “carbon tax, ” and don’t support any such thing. You suggest otherwise. You are wrong, period.

          • kimyo

            it’s all models. the ipcc ‘projections’ are all based on models.

            if nasa says there’s a hiatus, i’m inclined to consider it to be a possibility. if nasa says antarctic sea and land ice are increasing, i’m inclined to consider that to be possible. do you dispute that nasa has said the dreaded word ‘hiatus’ or that they have reported an increase in both sea and land ice in antarctica? if the continental ice is increasing, where is your ‘melt’ coming from?

            discussion of a tax on carbon emissions is quite relevant because that is the solution being proposed, in the u.s., canada, europe, australia and elsewhere. you’ll notice obama/prince charles/the pope/neil degrasse tyson/bill nye NEVER talk about conservation, the only proven and immediately effective alternative.

            be honest, what do you think ‘hide the decline’ means? i think we can agree on the definition of ‘hide’, but what is it that is ‘declining’?

            Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

            He added: “These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don’t believe they can ever be wrong.”

            Among the leaked emails disclosed last week were an alleged note from Professor Phil Jones, 57, the director of the CRU and a leading target of climate change sceptics, to an American colleague describing the death of a sceptic as “cheering news”; and a suggestion from Prof Jones that a “trick” is used to “hide the decline” in temperature.

            we know from the dnc emails that hrc/dws/podesta et al conspired to steal the election from sanders. do you consider this a valid conclusion? if so, why don’t the (uncontested) emails from the cru deserve examination?

          • Two Americas

            it’s all models. the ipcc ‘projections’ are all based on models.

            Projections are always based on models. I did not say otherwise. The reality of global warming is not dependent upon projections.

            You are such a liar.

            if nasa says there’s a hiatus, i’m inclined to consider it to be a possibility. if nasa says antarctic sea and land ice are increasing, i’m inclined to consider that to be possible. do you dispute that nasa has said the dreaded word ‘hiatus’ or that they have reported an increase in both sea and land ice in anarctica?

            NASA says no such thing. You are such a liar.

            if the continental ice is increasing, where is your ‘melt’ coming from?

            The article you linked to answers that question for you.You know that.

            You are such a liar.

            discussion of a tax on carbon emissions is quite relevant because that is the solution being proposed

            The relative value of a remedy someone may be suggesting to solve a problem has nothing to do with whether or not there is a problem.

            You know that. You are such a liar.

            Pants on fcking fire.

          • kimyo

            NASA says no such thing. You are such a liar.

            (please, this is like shooting fish in a barrel)
            NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’

            “Opinions vary about the hiatus, as some view it as evidence that man-made global warming is a myth,” NASA said in a press release. “Others explain that it is simply due to climate variability that is temporarily masking a longer-term temperature trend.”

            what does the phrase ‘hide the decline’ mean to you?

          • Two Americas

            The very first sentence in the article you link to contradicts your claim.

            Is this some kind of joke? I am done with it, whatever it is.

          • kimyo

            again, please. show some decency. have some courtesy. open your mind. consider skepticism. when the epa says ‘the air is safe to breathe’ you should be skeptical. when nist says fire caused the collapse of building 7, you should be skeptical. when obama/kerry et al say ‘climate change is the greatest challenge we face’, you should be skeptical.

            does nasa acknowledge the existence of a ‘global warming hiatus’? this is a simple, yes/no question. the answer, direct from nasa, is an unambiguous YES. here is yet another proof, from nasa’s ‘global climate change’ page: ‘Hiatus’ in rise of Earth’s surface air temperature likely temporary

            Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth’s surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.

            This trend — referred to as a “global warming hiatus” — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?

            nasa’s scientists chose to use the word ‘hiatus’, i didn’t. i merely quote them.

            ‘hiatus likely temporary’. what does that phrase mean to you?

          • good stinking grief — it’s settled insomuch as the warming is occurring (and at a rate that is behind the concern) and our activities are behind it, requiring a modification in our activities. Just because the list of ramifications of it isn’t complete or projections haven’t all held up, etc, doesn’t change that. If anything fleabrained flat earthers should be weary about the conservative nature of most of those “predictions” as they quaintly call them, since most of them seem to be erring on the side of things getting worse quicker than the models have projected in some instances. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/antarctica-sea-ice-hits-record-low-global-warming/ which is old news flat earther morons appear to be largely ignorant of, as they are most things involving AGW outside of amusingly stupid garbage like that you posted
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/antarctica-sea-ice-hits-record-low-global-warming/ that also noted in the same article

            But Dr Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre,
            says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming
            trend. Overall the Earth is losing sea ice at a rate of 35,000 sq km per
            year (13,514 sq miles).

            “Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to
            climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one
            thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The
            Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different
            things going on,” says Parkinson.

            what’s the matter, can’t wrap your mind around the diff between regional and global?

          • kimyo

            the problem is that 95% of the models predict a decrease in antarctic ice. this is not ‘regional vs global’, it is location specific and it is obviously falsified by observed data.

            another problem: we only have 12 or so years of measured temps for oceans at depth (argo started gathering data in 2005).

            if you are familiar with modeling, you comprehend that one cannot verify a model’s output without measured data.

            12 years is basically 1.5 el nino and 1.5 la nina cycles, clearly useful information and worth every penny. however, using 12 years of data to predict what may happen 50 years from now is quite dubious.

            we know far more about conditions on the surface of mars than we do about oceans at depth. lacking even a partial understanding (since we have essentially no measured data) of how oceans work, one should be humble and admit ones limitations.

            instead, what we get is obama/princecharles/thepope saying ‘only 18 months left to avoid climate catastrophe’. not humble. displaying zero cognition of the limits of science and models. 100% public relations.

          • jadan

            Good job, kimyo. You handle these true believers well.

          • still meaningless garbage in terms of rebutting what the “settled science” is and means, which is nothing more than a statement on the certainty of rising temps, co2/ghg increases largely being responsible for it, and man being responsible for those increases.

            There are always gonna be problems with predictions or projections with models where unknown/lacking in accurate quantification/unconsidered factors like positive/negative feedbacks give rise to chaos of the butterfly effect kind as the initial conditions used — like those involved in the recent faux/non-existent “pause” — but that’s a different issue from the one that the “settled science” revolves around, which is the earth’s energy balance/budget that’s simply a matter of measuring what energy comes in in the form of solar radiation versus what goes back out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget and just because all of those models weren’t complete or comprehensive enough in terms of inputs to arrive at conclusions more in line with the record as it unfolded in regards to Antarctica in no way refutes the fact that the earth is heating up and why.

            And I couldn’t care less if you’re wholly incapable of wrapping your mind around that — the basic science underlying AGW is “settled”. Hell, even the co2/temp sensitivity issue is “settled”

            “Climate sensitivity is often evaluated in terms of the change in equilibrium temperature due to radiative forcing due to the greenhouse effect. According to the Arrhenius relation,[11] the radiative forcing (and hence the change in temperature) is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration of infrared-absorbing gasses in the atmosphere. Thus, the sensitivity of temperature to gasses in the atmosphere (most notably carbon dioxide) is often expressed in terms of the change in temperature per doubling of the concentration of the gas.

            Radiative forcing due to doubled CO2CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback”;[12] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

            Flat earther idiots require accuracy in predictions/projections that can never be achieved in measures to satisfy them, and convince themselves through the power of CONflation that errors there past and present overrides the ghg effect and the various type of thermometers that measure that effect in determining the reality/settled science of AGW driven climate change.

            I also don’t care about diversions into who said what — I made a very narrow and specific claim regarding that the science is settled. And your inserting ocean temps into this doesn’t change anything either https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/03/measuring-ocean-heating-is-fundamentally-important-to-track-global-warming so why not just run along, no? The AGW science is settled, and represents the canvas upon which all of the interacting details/knowledge we accumulate about all the positive and negative feedbacks over time that will determine what the climate will be , will be painted. Failed predictions/models represent what we don’t know far more than what we do, because all of the latter is what goes into them — the former — not so much eh…

          • kimyo

            this is a list of salaries paid to epa employees as of dec 2007. the average salary is $92.5k. there are 8,450 people being paid more than $100k/year.

            one thinks that those folks might just be inclined to comment on internet boards such as these, denying the hiatus, denying the increased ice in antarctica, cause they’ve got $800,000 mortgages and kids to put thru college.

            nice work if you can get it.

            EPA Faults State ‘Failures and Resistance’ in Flint Water Crisis

            An EPA water expert, Miguel Del Toral, wrote an internal memo in June 2015 that said the situation was a “major concern” and that Flint’s testing methods could underestimate the amount of lead in the water.

            The memo was leaked by the ACLU, prompting an EPA administrator to apologize to state environmental officials, and spurring the state Department of Environmental Quality to bash Del Toral as a “rogue employee.”

            Behind the scenes, the EPA and the state were clashing on whether Michigan needed to treat the water in order to control corrosion, a July 2015 email shows.

            Insider: EPA Lied About WTC Air

            A scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency is charging that the agency lied when it claimed the air at ground zero was safe to breathe in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

            In an exclusive interview, Cate Jenkins. Ph.D., tells The Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith that wasn’t so, and EPA officials knew it, but covered up the truth.

            let’s show these lying epa administrators the door. they have utterly failed to protect american’s health and well-being. they allowed children to go back to school just a block and a half away from ground zero. they allowed tens of thousands of flint michigan residents to be poisoned. if they had any honor, we’d never hear from them again.

          • like I said, I’m not interested in your diversions, or another protracted “debate” regarding the “pause/hiatus” that never happened even if you consider the surface temps alone to which it refers, much less your imaginary denials from whoever regarding the land/sea ice in Antarctica. Much as the inadequacy in the form of whatever incorrectedness of modeling you might dredge up doesn’t address nor rebut the settled science, neither does any of that.

            The science underlying AGW has long been settled https://thinkprogress.org/100-years-ago-alexander-graham-bell-warned-us-about-the-greenhouse-effect-9251224326ce#.akcfwg3id as even the fossil fuel paid scientists have long shown, and the evidence for it occurring is overwhelming. http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/six-irrefutable-pieces-of-evidence-that-prove-climate-change-is-real/

            Accept the evidence or not, it doesn’t matter to me.

          • kimyo

            your so-called evidence is more akin to a bunch of cardinals announcing the arrival of a new pope with white or black smoke than any sort of reproducible experiment. unverifiable models are not science and cannot be used to set public policy. surely you don’t argue that the models can be verified???

            most here fully understand that the bls figures on unemployment are an absolute fiction. that krugman et al are nonsense. that the ‘safety’ of vioxx and takata airbags and g.e. nuclear plant designs may have been overstated. that studies showing gmo safety, funded by monsanto et al, might just be slightly skewed.

            but, climate science must be immune from this type of fraud, yes? well…….no.

            Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’

            The Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.

            Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.

            Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.

            In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

            Dr Marohasy said she had found examples where there had been no change in instrumentation or siting and no inconsistency with nearby stations but there had been a dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.

            She said that at Amberley in Queensland, homogenisation had resulted in a change in the temperature trend from one of cooling to dramatic warming.

            She calculated homogenisation had changed a cooling trend in the minimum temperature of 1C per century at Amberley into a warming trend of 2.5C. This was despite there being no change in location or instrumentation.

          • tell it to the melting glaciers and rising seas impotent one. and stick your debunked garbage from idiotic flat earthers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat up your cavernous anal cavity

          • kimyo

            if you had the goods, and they were convincing, you’d deliver. since you don’t, all you have available is playground insults.

            is the epa protecting the environment? or do they belong to monsanto? read on and weep: Unsealed Court Documents Show Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Show Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer

            And that’s where Jess Rowland, the EPA’s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he’s fully exploiting his role as the “chair of the CARC” to kill any potentially damaging research…”if I can kill this I should get a medal.”

            you lack an understanding of how this apparatus operates. the epa has zero interest in protecting the environment. the sec isn’t here to protect investors. the fda has approved countless drugs which have subsequently been shown to cause far more harm than relief. the tsa spends more time feeling up grandmothers than protecting us from terrorism.

            once you begin to comprehend how things operate, you’ll quickly see that the precision of climate data measurements cannot possibly deliver a scientific conclusion that we have ‘only 18 months before climate catastrophe’ or that ‘children will never know what snow is’.

            this is not science. it is public relations. consensus is not science, it never has been. consensus is 4 out of 5 dentists. consensus is public relations.

          • I’m not gonna respond to/rebut every god damn subject change you wanna produce little troll just so you can try to wring out some kinda victory you’ll never achieve. I made a very narrow case regarding the settled science that remains wholly intact, and you can kiss my ass and call a love story any effort you might wanna make to widen it into areas I didn’t initially address.

  • collette.robert@yahoo.com

    Politicians are naive enough to believe that they can say one thing to get elected and then do the complete opposite without facing any consequences. They have done it and gotten away with it for so long they are used to it. What they haven’t noticed is that more people are paying attention to the charade and are able to communicate about it. There will be consequences.

  • bondo

    trump hasnt failed
    trump is winning
    the msm and the deep-sixed shadow govt are goners