Will wonders never cease? https://www.timesofisrael.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In his inimical fashion Trump told team owners if players take a knee tell them to take a hike. Legally I presume the owners have contract clauses which allow them to fire a player for conduct that harms the franchise and team.
If players want to protest, express their social views and do so by disrespecting the flag and/or our national anthem they can leave the team and go to some park unemployed and express their displeasure with our nation..
Meanwhile fans are expressing their own displeasure by not attending.(See 1 below.)
http://www.gopusa.com/?p=30622
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
McCain has become a crotchety Senator and would be well advised to resign. Perhaps he and Rand Paul, who also needs to resign, can form a rock band.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++
More climate clamor. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++
1) Trump Gets Blunt at the United Nations
Will bracing clarity make things better or worse? We’ll know soon enough. But he said things the world needed to hear.
By Peggy Noonan
.I’m not sure President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly has been fairly judged or received. It was a strong speech—clear, emphatic, remarkably blunt. The great question is whether the bluntness will tend at this point in history to make things better or worse. We’ll find out soon enough.
Often Mr. Trump grows bored with prepared speeches and starts throwing in asides and improvising adjectives. But he was committed to this speech and focused: It looked like Trump believing what Trump was saying. Detractors say, “Oh, his speechwriters just put something in front of him,” but all presidents, from the most naturally eloquent to the verbally dullest, have speechwriters. The point is what a president decides he wants to say and how he agrees to say it. In the end he directs what goes in and what comes out.
Mr. Trump explained to the U.N. the assumptions he sees as driving his own foreign policy, which showed a proper respect for the opinion of mankind. He outlined the central problems facing the world as he sees them—a tradition in such speeches, and a good one, for it matters what an American president thinks.
Mr. Trump’s speech was rhetorically dense, in that a lot was in it and little time was wasted. There were moments of eloquence—the U.N. must not be complacent; we cannot become “bystanders to history.”
He began with the usual bragging: The U.S. economy is improving, and we are militarily strong and getting stronger—and fairly quickly kicked into hopefulness, and respect for the U.N.’s history.
On his administration’s driving foreign-policy attitudes: “We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every sovereign nation.” Then: “In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.”
He painted “America First” as benign, politically realistic. “Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens—to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. As president of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.” Still, the nations of the world must “work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.”
The U.S. has always been “a great friend to the world” and will continue to be. “Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall,” he said. “We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests and values.”
All this is the opposite of democracy promotion and nation building and dreams of eradicating evil. The president has spoken like this before. This section was less statement than restatement for an international audience.
But there was an interesting question of emphasis. Throughout the speech Mr. Trump stressed the importance of national sovereignty, of countries protecting their own ways and needs.
Sovereignty, of course, is crucial. But as he spoke, my mind went back to 1914 and all the fiercely sovereign nations that decided to go to war with each other, putting an end to a unique and rising European civilization. In 1945, after World War II, they put greater emphasis on a more corporate approach, on cooperation and transnational institutions. That path can be abused too, and has been. But it hasn’t been all bad.
It has been charged that Mr. Trump virtually ignored Russia, mentioning it only once, in thanks for supporting sanctions against North Korea. But he also said: “We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea.” That is not ignoring Russia. “We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture,” he said. “We must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.”
The most publicized section of the speech was on North Korea. He characterized its regime as “depraved,” “twisted,” a “band of criminals.” True enough. North Korea’s “reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles” cannot be allowed to continue. In the speech’s most famous flourish: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” The U.S. “has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”
Is this too hot, or helpful, or both? During the Cold War colorful candor produced a great deal. When Ronald Reagan was drop-dead blunt about the nature of the Soviet Union, foreign affairs was a high-stakes chess game between two superpowers. The context now is a less clearly demarcated world in which anyone with a weapon of mass destruction is, for the moment, a “superpower.” It’s hard to know if blunt talk will excite nuts into greater activity, or if bracing clarity about the risks they’re taking will slow them down, make them question their ambitions and intentions.
But the U.N. needed to hear clearly and unequivocally the gravity with which the American president views North Korea. Ultimately, as Mr. Trump noted, confronting this question is “what the United Nations is for.”
A great line—because it spoke a great truth—was this: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.” Mr. Trump then paused and looked at the audience. It struck some as a “please clap” moment. It struck me as a stare-down: I’m saying something a lot of you need to hear. You’re not going to like it, and I’m going to watch you not like it.
Two final points: One is that Mr. Trump is on a roll, a sustained one the past few weeks, and this is new. All levels of government performed well in the hurricanes. Mr. Trump showed competence, focus and warmth. His bipartisan outreach, however it ends, went over well with core supporters and others. He had a strong speech at the U.N., in fact a successful U.N. week, beginning to end. His poll numbers are inching toward 40%.
Which gets us to point two: This is a very important moment for him. History suggests he will ruin it any minute with intemperate statements, wiggy decisions or crazy tweets.
He does this because he’s somewhat compulsive and has trouble governing himself. He also does it because he thinks his supporters like it. Some do, but most don’t. He thinks they all do because he misunderstands his base.
Mr. Trump’s supporters should push back when he starts to go slightly mad. They should tweet at him: “Stop, Donald! Be U.N. Donald, not Twitter Donald.”
They should tweet this to him by the millions. Because he does feel some loyalty to them, and it’s possible he might try to listen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)By The Editorial Board
Mr. McCain said in a Friday statement that he “cannot in good conscience” vote for a proposal from Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy that would devolve ObamaCare funding to the states, as well as repeal the medical-device tax and the employer and individual mandates. The deadline to pass the bill with 51 votes is Sept. 30 thanks to arcane Senate budget procedures. Mr. McCain’s no vote almost certainly dooms the project, as Mr. Paul has already declared his opposition and Susan Collins of Maine is thought to be a reliable no vote as well.
Mr. McCain said that “a bill of this impact requires a bipartisan approach.” This is a pipe dream. Democrats think they can use the troubles with ObamaCare against Republicans next year, and they may be right. More to the point, Democrats are mobilizing behind single payer, an idea that about one-third of Senate Democrats have endorsed.
Mr. McCain says he favors regular order, so perhaps Mr. Graham and company should go ahead with that and see if they can attach their bill to the next reconciliation vehicle after hearings and more debate. Our guess is Mr. McCain will oppose the bill even then. He’ll be waiting forever if he wants a bipartisan solution on an issue that is so polarized over the underlying role for government in delivering health care.
Mr. McCain’s objections are about also about process, including that the Senate wouldn’t have a full score from the Congressional Budget Office in time for a vote. We won’t insult Mr. McCain by suggesting that he actually believes that several economists on Capitol Hill could forecast how 50 Governors across the country would use the money to experiment with health-care coverage.
Then there’s Mr. Paul, who has trashed the Graham-Cassidy proposal as ObamaCare lite because it isn’t sufficiently perfect reform or total repeal. But that is never coming either. Perhaps Mr. Paul should leave the Senate for the priesthood, so that he can live up to his chaste principles. On this earth he is abetting a further government takeover of health care. He is killing this bill, and reform, as surely as Mr. McCain.
What’s bizarre is that in another life—two months ago—Mr. Paul claimed to understand this reality. In July on Fox News he said he’d vote for the Senate’s “skinny repeal,” which would have nixed discrete features such as the individual mandate, because it was “the best I can get, given the colleagues that I have. You send me some better colleagues, and I will repeal more of it.” Now who needs better colleagues?
What’s likely to be a bitter irony of Sen. McCain’s decision is that his action will endanger the fellow Republicans whose moderation he claims to revere. The ObamaCare failure is certain to enrage the Trump base. That anger will be channeled at his fellow moderates, either as primary challenges or efforts to drive them out of the Senate. It will erode what little is left of Donald Trump’s faith in the Republican Party. The worst outcome from this second GOP failure is that millions of Americans will continue to face higher costs and fewer choices for their health care.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming
Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images
3)Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming
"The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions."
A new report published by a team of prominent climate scientists confirms what many skeptics have pointed out for years: the climate models have overestimated the amount of global warming and failed to predict what climatologists call the warming "hiatus," over 20 years of almost no change in temperatures.
The report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience on September 18, acknowledges that most of the models of warming trends failed to predict the "slowdown" in warming post-2000, resulting in less pronounced warming than predicted and thus more room in the CO2 "emissions budget" for the coming decades. The report in part intends to "reset" the estimations for the new predictions on when the earth will hit what the U.N. has determined to be dangerous warming levels.
The team of climate scientists notes that in failing to predict the warming "hiatus" in the beginning of the 21st century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models overestimated temperature increases, consequently setting key benchmarks for warming earlier than they need to be, given the actual numbers.
"The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions," University of Exerter's Pierre
Another co-author, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis' Joeir Rogelj, explained to the Post that the models used by the IPCC have made two mistakes: "slightly overestimat[ing] historical warming" and "underestimat[ing] compatible historical CO2 emissions"
"These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget," said Rogelj. The new study, he said, attempts to "reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today."
The report follows a study by another team of climate scientists published in June 2017 that likewise determined that the actual increases in warming post-2000 was "generally smaller than trends estimated" from the models. Here's the abstract of the study:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
The Daily Caller notes a few other reports by climate scientists in the last few years that have likewise underscored the climate models' overestimation of warming, with one determining that the models have predicted 2.5 times more warming than has actually been observed:
Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades. Scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has testified before Congress on the matter.
Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed. ...
[The] author and atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue wrote about the new “consensus” on global warmingin the wake of a June study by prominent climate scientists.
That study found “satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment