THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 30, 2019 at 6:55 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, having established the fact that for each and every one of us, whether just a common person, or the highest-up scientist there ever was, the BASIC SCIENCE is that were it not for the fact of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere as a vital component, whether through intelligent design, or otherwise, life as we humans know it would not be possible, right across the board.
So, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it, and here I am talking about such basics as food production, as we can clearly see from the BASIC SCIENCE that Arrhenius “got right” in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe,” published in 1908, where we have as follows:
Another process which withdraws carbonic acid from the air is the assimilation of plants.
Plants absorb carbonic acid under secretion of carbon compounds and under exhalation of oxygen.
Like the weathering, the assimilation increases with the percentage of carbonic acid.
end quotes
With respect to food production, people, give that last sentence above some thought as we go back to Arrhenius, as follows:
The Polish botanist E. Godlewski showed as early as 1872 that various plants (he studied Typha latifolia and Glyceria spectabilis with particular care) absorb from the air an amount of carbonic acid which increases proportionally with the percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere up to 1 per cent., and that the assimilation then attains, in the former plant, a maximum at 6 per cent., and in the latter plant at 9 per cent.
The assimilation afterwards diminishes if the carbonic acid percentage is further augmented.
If, therefore, the percentage of carbon dioxide be doubled, the absorption by the plants would also be doubled.
If, at the same time, the temperature rises by 4, the vitality will increase in the ratio of 1 : 1.5, so that the doubling of the carbon dioxide percentage will lead to an increase in the absorption of carbonic acid by the plant approximately in the ratio of 1 : 3.
An increase of the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise the intensity of vegetable life and the intensity of the inorganic chemical reactions threefold.
end quotes
Note again that when Arrhenius is writing those words, he is talking about a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were roughly 290 ppm, so a doubling would take that number to 580 ppm, far above the present level of 400 ppm.
So, for poor people like myself who grow our own food, or we starve, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually better in terms of plant vitality and growth, which is something these “climate scientists” perched high in their ivory towers never think about.
So, again, WHY are we being asked or told to be hysterical about the fact that our atmosphere has 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in it today when carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere is essential to life as we know it?
That is the essential question being raised and never answered, just avoided, in all the threads on the subject of either global warming or climate change that the Mirror has been running as a sort of on-going series to cover various aspects of what I am calling the “climate crisis scam,” which has brought us to this discussion in here, which itself is occurring on many levels as it must to be fully understood.
And it is a “climate crisis scam” because there is no evidence that the changing of the earth’s ever-changing climate is a crisis, as can be seen in this exchange between myself and the high-ranking NOAA scientist, as follows:
Q: Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 7:10:37 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote: Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
Nor do any of these so-called experts who would have us believing they can control nature and the earth and its climate as if it were a trained seal playing the Star-Spangled Banner on a tuned set of bicycle horns.
With respect to how much carbon dioxide should actually be in the earth’s atmosphere, we have widely varying opinions which triggered this exchange between myself as an engineer and that top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:
On 9/23/2019 3:25 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
On Monday, September 23, 2019, 3:47:23 PM EDT, Howard Diamond wrote:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
So, is there a “climate crisis,” people?
Or is it hysteria-mongering?
Consider the NBC NEWS article “Climate change is causing ‘eco-anxiety’ ― here’s what we can do” by Kim Fitzsimons on 30 October 2019, to wit:
As the reality of climate change becomes clearer than ever, some experts believe that as bad as the wildfires, droughts or record-breaking storms are, it’ll be the anxiety over climate change that will affect Americans even more.
Piles of reports document the gravity of this, and of what we potentially face.
Climate activists, like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who recently addressed the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit in New York, further emphasize the message.
“The world is waking up,” she said.
“And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
As a result, according to a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities, we’re more anxious than ever when it comes to climate, with a record number of Americans now convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring.
end quotes
“Human-caused” global warming is occurring?
Do tell.
So, if there were no humans on earth, would the earth’s climate then be unchanging?
Something to think about, anyway.
As to the supposed CO2 levels in the air, and whether or not CO2 is uniformly distributed as a gas all over the earth equally, which it is not, I posed this question on BASIC SCIENCE to the NOAA scientist, to wit:
On 9/23/19 6:03 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
It has been observed that CO2 levels wax and wane over the northern hemisphere as a function of season, with levels decreasing during the growing season, and yet, this does not seem to be considered in the “consensus” theory.
Why would that be?
end quotes
That is a question that never got answered.
And please, don’t change your dial, because this “Climate-Gate Saga” still has legs and room to run.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-192249
Just musings, is all
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 1, 2019 at 6:30 pm
Paul Plante says:
So, yes, people, while we are this subject of the Democrat’s “GREAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM” which is leading us into the 2020 American presidential election which the Democrats hope to sweep by making us angry at Trump and at the same time scared that the world is going to end because of the “climate crisis” and “carbon pollution,” now that Greta Thunberg and her “FANTASTIC, FANTABULOUS MAKE A CLOUD OF CARBON DIOXIDE TO FIGHT CLOBAL WARMING” World Tour are back in the news, this according to a Marketwatch article entitled “Greta Thunberg rejects climate-change prize: ‘Climate movement does not need any more awards’” by Rachel Koning Beals published Oct, 30, 2019, where we had little rich-girl Greta continuing her leisurely peregrination around the world, this time appearing in California for the Youth Climate Strike in Los Angeles, which is little Greta’s big thing, encouraging children in America to be disobedient and throw tantrums like little Greta, who sees the temper tantrum as a potent political tool, as a way of making the earth’s ever-changing climate stop changing, as if the earth’s climate actually gave a damn about what those children doing the striking want it to do, what I would like to do in here is to take a moment, in the light of a long, long, well-known history relating to the earth’s climate, to address this comment attributed to little Greta, who wants us all, each and every one of us, to feel panic so we can know the “fear” of God-alone-knows-what that little girl feels every day, in that article, to wit:
“What we need is for our politicians and the people in power (to) start to listen to the current, best available science.”
end quotes
So, Greta, tell us, since you seem to know – what is the “current, best available science” that our American politicians and people in power need to start listening to?
You say that over and over, Greta, listen to the scientists, listen to the science, and truthfully, and this is speaking as a compassionate grandfather who is a licensed professional engineer further qualified as an associate level public health engineer that each time you say it, Greta, it sounds just a stupid this time as it did the last time and the time before that, as well.
WHAT SCIENCE, Greta?
And here, people, since Greta’s message is aimed at our politicians, let’s take a moment to consider the long political history this subject of the climate has had in this country, to wit:
As to the best climate science available today, I would have to put forth “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College in England, where we have as follows:
The view, so widely held until recently, of climate as constant was perhaps no more than a premature conclusion from the first long records of weather observations made with standard meteorological instruments in the world’s leading cities.
Many of these records had covered a hundred years by about the end of the nineteenth century, and it so happened that between 1875 and 1895 the temperatures prevailing in Europe and eastern North America had reverted to values quite similar to those of just a century earlier.
end quotes
And there is what fuels poor little Greta’s anxiety – the fact that even for little rich girls like Greta, life is not a “just so” story where the climate is just like you want it to be, not too cold, not too hot, but just right all the time, every day in an unceasing progression, and because of that, it can never change and always has to stay the same.
Now, one has to truly wonder how in this day and age with so much information so freely available, including Lamb’s work on climate, little Greta is so ignorant about the reality of earth’s climate, which is that it is not constant, and never should be mistaken for being constant, as we see by returning to Lamb, as follows:
In between there had been some colder decades with important glacier advances — a major climax of the glaciers in the Alps about 1820–50 — followed by a warmer time, which was in fact the beginning of a general recession of the glaciers all over the world until around 1960 or even later.
end quotes
Now, I don’t know what anybody else is thinking, and many in fact aren’t, but that people, is “THE SCIENCE.”
And that science greatly messes with the modern-day “science” little Greta is peddling, that any and all climate change today is not natural, but instead, is solely caused by humans, as if humans were not a part of nature here on earth, which itself is an absurd proposition.
Getting back to Lamb:
The conclusion that climate is essentially constant, which at first seemed to be the verdict of scientific observation, though in fact the hundred-year record was not enough to establish it, was at odds with the acquired wisdom and experience of previous generations.
It had actually been concern about ‘the sudden variations in the behaviour of the seasons’ to which the climate seemed ‘more and more subject’, and about possible effects on agricultural production and human health, that had led to the setting up of some of the first nation-wide networks of meteorological observations from 1775 onwards.
end quotes
Now, seriously, people, given that the earth’s climate was an issue to people living on earth in 1775, which is 244 years ago now, why are we all pretending that this is something new?
Getting back to Lamb, who is writing 38 years ago in 1981, we have the basis of this Democrat “Climate Crisis Scam” being foisted off on us today, as follows:
Estimates published of the warming to be expected by the year 2100 range from 2 to 11°C, the more extreme ones implying that the level of the world’s oceans should begin to rise rapidly as melting of the land-based icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica got under way.
This is an opinion, seemingly founded on firm scientific knowledge, which has to be taken seriously, even though we may notice some grounds for doubt and scepticism.
end quotes
And what is happening today is that absolute certainty is being put in the place of doubt and skepticism, which is very un-scientific, as well as un-democratic.
In fact, if we go to a site entitled Climate Science Investigations http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/introductio ... eptics.php we have as follows:
Why Must Scientists Be Skeptics?
Skepticism is the act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims.
It allows scientists to consider all possibilities and systematically question all information in the course of an investigation.
Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important?
Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research.
It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up.
Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.
Skepticism allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.
In order to remain objective, scientists must remain skeptical.
In order for scientific knowledge to be advanced, that knowledge must be open to revision.
Science works to determine the statistical probability (mathematical likelihood) of a claim’s accuracy, not its certainty.
end quotes
With regard to doubt and skepticism, necessary qualities in a true scientist, on Sept. 28, 2019, I received this following in an e-mail from a top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:
Over the Earth’s history, there have been times when atmospheric CO2 has been higher than current levels.
Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods.
Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2?
No, for one simple reason that CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate.
Admittedly, the arguments today do focus on CO2, and while critically important, CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
There are a myriad of other radiative forcings that affect the planet’s energy imbalance.
Volcanoes, solar variations, clouds, methane, aerosols – these all change the way energy enters and/or leaves our climate.
There are many influences of climate and they all need to be considered together to gain the full picture.
end quotes
On Monday, September 23, 2019 @ 7:10:37 PM EDT, that same scientist answered my following question as follows, to wit:
Q. Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
A. Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
So why are the Democrats telling us there is a “climate crisis?”
Besides from little Greta, where are they getting their certainty of a “climate crisis” from?
And that takes us back to Lamb and the political history underlying this issue, as follows:
It was against this background that Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was at the time United States Secretary of State, in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 April 1974, mentioned the threat of climatic changes and pressed the appropriate international scientific organizations ‘urgently to investigate this problem’.
end quotes
What Dr. Kissinger actually said in that speech was as follows:
The poorest nations, already beset by manmade disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes in the monsoon belt and perhaps throughout the world.
The implications for global food and population policies are ominous.
The United States proposes that the International Council of Scientific Unions and the World Meteorological Organization urgently investigate this problem and offer guidelines for immediate international action.
end quotes
Getting back to Lamb, once again, we have:
The World Meteorological Organization has for some years been organizing a Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) with the climate problem as one of its objectives.
The United States took the lead in adopting by Act of Congress in 1978 a National Climate Research Program and urging designation of the twenty-year period 1980–2000 as International Climate Decades, to secure broad international co-operation in the collection and analysis of all available climatic data and study of the problem.
end quotes
So again, people, with all of this history which the Democrats should be as well aware of as I am, why are we hearing about a “climate crisis” today in 2019?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-192896
Paul Plante says:
So, yes, people, while we are this subject of the Democrat’s “GREAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM” which is leading us into the 2020 American presidential election which the Democrats hope to sweep by making us angry at Trump and at the same time scared that the world is going to end because of the “climate crisis” and “carbon pollution,” now that Greta Thunberg and her “FANTASTIC, FANTABULOUS MAKE A CLOUD OF CARBON DIOXIDE TO FIGHT CLOBAL WARMING” World Tour are back in the news, this according to a Marketwatch article entitled “Greta Thunberg rejects climate-change prize: ‘Climate movement does not need any more awards’” by Rachel Koning Beals published Oct, 30, 2019, where we had little rich-girl Greta continuing her leisurely peregrination around the world, this time appearing in California for the Youth Climate Strike in Los Angeles, which is little Greta’s big thing, encouraging children in America to be disobedient and throw tantrums like little Greta, who sees the temper tantrum as a potent political tool, as a way of making the earth’s ever-changing climate stop changing, as if the earth’s climate actually gave a damn about what those children doing the striking want it to do, what I would like to do in here is to take a moment, in the light of a long, long, well-known history relating to the earth’s climate, to address this comment attributed to little Greta, who wants us all, each and every one of us, to feel panic so we can know the “fear” of God-alone-knows-what that little girl feels every day, in that article, to wit:
“What we need is for our politicians and the people in power (to) start to listen to the current, best available science.”
end quotes
So, Greta, tell us, since you seem to know – what is the “current, best available science” that our American politicians and people in power need to start listening to?
You say that over and over, Greta, listen to the scientists, listen to the science, and truthfully, and this is speaking as a compassionate grandfather who is a licensed professional engineer further qualified as an associate level public health engineer that each time you say it, Greta, it sounds just a stupid this time as it did the last time and the time before that, as well.
WHAT SCIENCE, Greta?
And here, people, since Greta’s message is aimed at our politicians, let’s take a moment to consider the long political history this subject of the climate has had in this country, to wit:
As to the best climate science available today, I would have to put forth “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College in England, where we have as follows:
The view, so widely held until recently, of climate as constant was perhaps no more than a premature conclusion from the first long records of weather observations made with standard meteorological instruments in the world’s leading cities.
Many of these records had covered a hundred years by about the end of the nineteenth century, and it so happened that between 1875 and 1895 the temperatures prevailing in Europe and eastern North America had reverted to values quite similar to those of just a century earlier.
end quotes
And there is what fuels poor little Greta’s anxiety – the fact that even for little rich girls like Greta, life is not a “just so” story where the climate is just like you want it to be, not too cold, not too hot, but just right all the time, every day in an unceasing progression, and because of that, it can never change and always has to stay the same.
Now, one has to truly wonder how in this day and age with so much information so freely available, including Lamb’s work on climate, little Greta is so ignorant about the reality of earth’s climate, which is that it is not constant, and never should be mistaken for being constant, as we see by returning to Lamb, as follows:
In between there had been some colder decades with important glacier advances — a major climax of the glaciers in the Alps about 1820–50 — followed by a warmer time, which was in fact the beginning of a general recession of the glaciers all over the world until around 1960 or even later.
end quotes
Now, I don’t know what anybody else is thinking, and many in fact aren’t, but that people, is “THE SCIENCE.”
And that science greatly messes with the modern-day “science” little Greta is peddling, that any and all climate change today is not natural, but instead, is solely caused by humans, as if humans were not a part of nature here on earth, which itself is an absurd proposition.
Getting back to Lamb:
The conclusion that climate is essentially constant, which at first seemed to be the verdict of scientific observation, though in fact the hundred-year record was not enough to establish it, was at odds with the acquired wisdom and experience of previous generations.
It had actually been concern about ‘the sudden variations in the behaviour of the seasons’ to which the climate seemed ‘more and more subject’, and about possible effects on agricultural production and human health, that had led to the setting up of some of the first nation-wide networks of meteorological observations from 1775 onwards.
end quotes
Now, seriously, people, given that the earth’s climate was an issue to people living on earth in 1775, which is 244 years ago now, why are we all pretending that this is something new?
Getting back to Lamb, who is writing 38 years ago in 1981, we have the basis of this Democrat “Climate Crisis Scam” being foisted off on us today, as follows:
Estimates published of the warming to be expected by the year 2100 range from 2 to 11°C, the more extreme ones implying that the level of the world’s oceans should begin to rise rapidly as melting of the land-based icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica got under way.
This is an opinion, seemingly founded on firm scientific knowledge, which has to be taken seriously, even though we may notice some grounds for doubt and scepticism.
end quotes
And what is happening today is that absolute certainty is being put in the place of doubt and skepticism, which is very un-scientific, as well as un-democratic.
In fact, if we go to a site entitled Climate Science Investigations http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/introductio ... eptics.php we have as follows:
Why Must Scientists Be Skeptics?
Skepticism is the act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims.
It allows scientists to consider all possibilities and systematically question all information in the course of an investigation.
Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important?
Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research.
It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up.
Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.
Skepticism allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.
In order to remain objective, scientists must remain skeptical.
In order for scientific knowledge to be advanced, that knowledge must be open to revision.
Science works to determine the statistical probability (mathematical likelihood) of a claim’s accuracy, not its certainty.
end quotes
With regard to doubt and skepticism, necessary qualities in a true scientist, on Sept. 28, 2019, I received this following in an e-mail from a top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:
Over the Earth’s history, there have been times when atmospheric CO2 has been higher than current levels.
Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods.
Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2?
No, for one simple reason that CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate.
Admittedly, the arguments today do focus on CO2, and while critically important, CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
There are a myriad of other radiative forcings that affect the planet’s energy imbalance.
Volcanoes, solar variations, clouds, methane, aerosols – these all change the way energy enters and/or leaves our climate.
There are many influences of climate and they all need to be considered together to gain the full picture.
end quotes
On Monday, September 23, 2019 @ 7:10:37 PM EDT, that same scientist answered my following question as follows, to wit:
Q. Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
A. Frankly, I do not know.
end quotes
So why are the Democrats telling us there is a “climate crisis?”
Besides from little Greta, where are they getting their certainty of a “climate crisis” from?
And that takes us back to Lamb and the political history underlying this issue, as follows:
It was against this background that Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was at the time United States Secretary of State, in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 April 1974, mentioned the threat of climatic changes and pressed the appropriate international scientific organizations ‘urgently to investigate this problem’.
end quotes
What Dr. Kissinger actually said in that speech was as follows:
The poorest nations, already beset by manmade disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes in the monsoon belt and perhaps throughout the world.
The implications for global food and population policies are ominous.
The United States proposes that the International Council of Scientific Unions and the World Meteorological Organization urgently investigate this problem and offer guidelines for immediate international action.
end quotes
Getting back to Lamb, once again, we have:
The World Meteorological Organization has for some years been organizing a Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) with the climate problem as one of its objectives.
The United States took the lead in adopting by Act of Congress in 1978 a National Climate Research Program and urging designation of the twenty-year period 1980–2000 as International Climate Decades, to secure broad international co-operation in the collection and analysis of all available climatic data and study of the problem.
end quotes
So again, people, with all of this history which the Democrats should be as well aware of as I am, why are we hearing about a “climate crisis” today in 2019?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-192896
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 2, 2019 at 6:47 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, how long have we been hearing about this “climate crisis?”
And where did this hyperbolic term come from?
And it is hyperbolic because something that might or might not happen some 80 years into the future, when little Greta Thunberg will be 96, does not constitute a “climate crisis” today, period, especially since we have known for several hundred years if not more, especially in the former Viking nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden where history goes back a thousand years or more, that the climate is ever changing.
Early on, the Vikings became Christians, so that their various settlements, including those on Greenland, has priests and bishops who were educated and who kept meticulous records, including on Greenland, which incidentally is the subject of an article in The Independent entitled “Climate change ‘did not force Vikings to abandon Greenland in 15th century'” by Steve Connor, Science Editor, on 4 December 2015, to wit:
Climate change is blamed for many things in history, but it seems that it can now be ruled out as an explanation for why the Vikings had abandoned their settlements in Greenland by the mid-15th Century after 400 years of valiant occupation.
Some historians have suggested that the Medieval Warm Period, when vines were grown as far north as York, can account for the colonisation of southern Greenland by Vikings sailing in ice-free waters from their earlier settlements on Iceland, starting in 986 AD.
Equally, the rather abrupt abandoment of Greenland some four centuries later was rather neatly explained by the start of the so-called Little Ice Age, which was estimated to have run between about 1350 to 1850 and is said to have been why it was possible to have frost fairs on a frozen River Thames.
However, geologists who have analysed the rocky “moraines” left behind by retreating glaciers in Greenland and nearby Baffin Island, where Vikings were also thought to have settled, have all but ruled out changes in the local climate as the reason for the colonisation and abandoment of this most westerly outpost of the Viking empire.
“We have found no reason to believe that it was any more warmer at the start of the colonisation than at the end.”
“It looks like the climate was by and large pretty stable.”
“Other factors must have led to them leaving Greenland,” said Nicolas Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.
There is little doubt that the Medieval Warm Period did exist, although scientists have disputed the dates it began and ended.
But there is mounting evidence that it was largely a European phenenomon and related to the “sea-saw” oscillation of the North Atlantic climate – when western Europe is warm, southern Greenland becomes cooler, and vice versa, Dr Young said.
“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global.”
“The concept is Eurocentric [because] that’s where the best known observations were made.”
“Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same,” Dr Young explained.
The red-bearded Viking Erik the Red was first to colonise southern Greenland, which he allegedly named as a propaganda exercise to encourage other Icelandic Vikings to follow him.
The colonisers brought sheep and cattle and established farms on the few unglaciated pastures.
They built about 400 stone buildings, including churches, a monestery and even a cathedral with an imported bronze bell and green-tinted glass windows, trading for several generations in polar bear skins, narwhal tusks and walruss ivory with the fellow Norse speakers in Iceland and Norway in return for iron tools and other essentials.
With a population that peaked at about 5,000 individuals, they were the most westerly-living Europeans for several centuries until Columbus discovered America, but something happened in the 15th Century that led them to abandon their remote settlements in the West and then East of southern Greenland.
Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian at Iceland’s Akureyri University, said that the findings published in the journal Science Advances, show that the climate is clearly a more complicated factor than some people had assumed when it came to the Greenland Norse.
“I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm and then ‘it got cold and they died’.”
“I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination,” Dr Ovilvie said.
end quotes
Now, if in fact “science” means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, then I would classify the above as an exercise in what “science” should be, something open and shared, not something closed and concealed as seems to be the case with the supporting evidence for this GREAT DEMOCRAT “CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM that is leading us into the 2020 presidential elections.
And with respect to that, google “Democrats, climate crisis,” where you will find such hysteria-mongering by the Democrats, as follows:
Andrew Yang Offers Dark Vision of Climate Change at …
https://www.esquire.com › andrew-yang-climate-change-democratic-debate
Aug 1, 2019 – Andrew Yang Offered a Doomsday Vision of the Climate Crisis. …
As Climate Change Returns to Capitol Hill, Disagreements …
https://www.newyorker.com › news › news-desk › as-climate-change-returns…
Feb 9, 2019 – Carolyn Kormann writes about the Democratic Party’s disjointed efforts to alleviate climate change, such as the Green New Deal and proposals …
‘Green New Deal’ Democrats Position Climate Change as …
https://www.wsj.com › articles › green-new-deal-democrats-position-climate-…
Feb 8, 2019 – Democratic officials are pushing for a plan to quickly wean the U.S. economy off fossil fuels and dramatically overhaul the energy infrastructure.
Debate is Over for Dems: Climate Crisis It Is. GOP: Crisis …
https://www.dailykos.com › story ›
Jun 28, 2019 – In case you were wondering why Climate Change is getting the attention of Democratic candidates, and why “Climate Crisis” is finally getting …
end quotes
And with that, for the moment, I will rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... isis-scam/
Paul Plante says :
So, how long have we been hearing about this “climate crisis?”
And where did this hyperbolic term come from?
And it is hyperbolic because something that might or might not happen some 80 years into the future, when little Greta Thunberg will be 96, does not constitute a “climate crisis” today, period, especially since we have known for several hundred years if not more, especially in the former Viking nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden where history goes back a thousand years or more, that the climate is ever changing.
Early on, the Vikings became Christians, so that their various settlements, including those on Greenland, has priests and bishops who were educated and who kept meticulous records, including on Greenland, which incidentally is the subject of an article in The Independent entitled “Climate change ‘did not force Vikings to abandon Greenland in 15th century'” by Steve Connor, Science Editor, on 4 December 2015, to wit:
Climate change is blamed for many things in history, but it seems that it can now be ruled out as an explanation for why the Vikings had abandoned their settlements in Greenland by the mid-15th Century after 400 years of valiant occupation.
Some historians have suggested that the Medieval Warm Period, when vines were grown as far north as York, can account for the colonisation of southern Greenland by Vikings sailing in ice-free waters from their earlier settlements on Iceland, starting in 986 AD.
Equally, the rather abrupt abandoment of Greenland some four centuries later was rather neatly explained by the start of the so-called Little Ice Age, which was estimated to have run between about 1350 to 1850 and is said to have been why it was possible to have frost fairs on a frozen River Thames.
However, geologists who have analysed the rocky “moraines” left behind by retreating glaciers in Greenland and nearby Baffin Island, where Vikings were also thought to have settled, have all but ruled out changes in the local climate as the reason for the colonisation and abandoment of this most westerly outpost of the Viking empire.
“We have found no reason to believe that it was any more warmer at the start of the colonisation than at the end.”
“It looks like the climate was by and large pretty stable.”
“Other factors must have led to them leaving Greenland,” said Nicolas Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.
There is little doubt that the Medieval Warm Period did exist, although scientists have disputed the dates it began and ended.
But there is mounting evidence that it was largely a European phenenomon and related to the “sea-saw” oscillation of the North Atlantic climate – when western Europe is warm, southern Greenland becomes cooler, and vice versa, Dr Young said.
“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global.”
“The concept is Eurocentric [because] that’s where the best known observations were made.”
“Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same,” Dr Young explained.
The red-bearded Viking Erik the Red was first to colonise southern Greenland, which he allegedly named as a propaganda exercise to encourage other Icelandic Vikings to follow him.
The colonisers brought sheep and cattle and established farms on the few unglaciated pastures.
They built about 400 stone buildings, including churches, a monestery and even a cathedral with an imported bronze bell and green-tinted glass windows, trading for several generations in polar bear skins, narwhal tusks and walruss ivory with the fellow Norse speakers in Iceland and Norway in return for iron tools and other essentials.
With a population that peaked at about 5,000 individuals, they were the most westerly-living Europeans for several centuries until Columbus discovered America, but something happened in the 15th Century that led them to abandon their remote settlements in the West and then East of southern Greenland.
Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian at Iceland’s Akureyri University, said that the findings published in the journal Science Advances, show that the climate is clearly a more complicated factor than some people had assumed when it came to the Greenland Norse.
“I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm and then ‘it got cold and they died’.”
“I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination,” Dr Ovilvie said.
end quotes
Now, if in fact “science” means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, then I would classify the above as an exercise in what “science” should be, something open and shared, not something closed and concealed as seems to be the case with the supporting evidence for this GREAT DEMOCRAT “CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM that is leading us into the 2020 presidential elections.
And with respect to that, google “Democrats, climate crisis,” where you will find such hysteria-mongering by the Democrats, as follows:
Andrew Yang Offers Dark Vision of Climate Change at …
https://www.esquire.com › andrew-yang-climate-change-democratic-debate
Aug 1, 2019 – Andrew Yang Offered a Doomsday Vision of the Climate Crisis. …
As Climate Change Returns to Capitol Hill, Disagreements …
https://www.newyorker.com › news › news-desk › as-climate-change-returns…
Feb 9, 2019 – Carolyn Kormann writes about the Democratic Party’s disjointed efforts to alleviate climate change, such as the Green New Deal and proposals …
‘Green New Deal’ Democrats Position Climate Change as …
https://www.wsj.com › articles › green-new-deal-democrats-position-climate-…
Feb 8, 2019 – Democratic officials are pushing for a plan to quickly wean the U.S. economy off fossil fuels and dramatically overhaul the energy infrastructure.
Debate is Over for Dems: Climate Crisis It Is. GOP: Crisis …
https://www.dailykos.com › story ›
Jun 28, 2019 – In case you were wondering why Climate Change is getting the attention of Democratic candidates, and why “Climate Crisis” is finally getting …
end quotes
And with that, for the moment, I will rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... isis-scam/
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 2, 2019 at 10:49 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, getting back to “Climate-gate” for a moment, exactly what was that controversy actually about?
Does anyone really have a clue?
More to the point, is there anyone who even cares?
Afterall, we had Jon Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University telling us, quite accurately in my estimation, that, “We don’t see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) emails, it’s too inside baseball.”
But then, on the other hand, and there always is one, isn’t there, we had a much more somber A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, and colleagues in 2010 telling us this, instead:
Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists.
The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology.
Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.
end quotes
Now, that is hyperbolic horse**** for several reasons, starting with the fact that the majority of people in America weren’t even aware of Climate-gate as it was happening, and people do not trust “scientists” for the reason that scientists have proven themselves not worthy of trust, and here I cite as just one example an article in the Albany, New York Times Union entitled “Work raises questions on canal, lawsuit – Fourth season of cleanup begins as dispute between GE, National Grid flares” by Brian Nearing on April 30, 2013, as follows:
Fort Edward – Dredging of PCBs from the Hudson River resumed for the season Monday with two large unanswered questions: Will General Electric Co., which has spent about $1 billion so far on the cleanup, convince a judge that a utility company ought to help pay for the work?
And will PCBs ever be dredged from the river’s tainted Champlain Canal channel?
GE wants National Grid to cover some of the bill because a predecessor company, Niagara Mohawk, unleashed a torrent of PCBs downriver after removing a dam in Fort Edward, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court Friday by GE.
On Monday, GE spokesman Mark Behan said GE believes National Grid bears responsibility for a 1973 decision by Niagara Mohawk to tear down an aging, 1880s-era dam downstream of GE plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
That dam was holding back PCBs that had been released into the river over the years by the plants.
Tons of tainted mud and sediments were swept downstream.
end quotes
Now, as it so happens, I was employed by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation at that time, this being 1975, and it was given to me to go down through all of the documents related to the removal of that dam, as the DEC was at that same time trying to hold GE to account in a hearing that I was collecting evidence for.
The bottom line is that the “scientist,” a college professor somewhere with a Ph.D. acting as a “rented pencil” with a scientific opinion on something available to those who could afford to buy it (science is a bidness, afterall) applied the wrong theory, using “classic impoundment theory” in a situation where the theory clearly was the wrong one to use, which a smart high school student would have determined if he or she had actually first visited the site, which the “scientist” never did, and then studied the history of the Hudson River, which the “scientist” never did, and then looked at the theory itself and what conditions in reality were required for that theory to be applicable.
Then, in the hearing, GE hired another “scientist,” again a professor somewhere with a Ph.D. so he of course was “Dr. Such-and-Such,” which is what makes them so important, and my job was to sit and listen as he was cross-examined by a DEC lawyer, and when he spouted bull****, which is what I as an engineer trust them to do, I would write out a note to the lawyer who would then adjust his questioning.
In this case, the “scientist” visited the site by being flown over it in a small plane.
During his testimony, which was intended to cover the proceedings with smoke in a vain attempt to absolve GE, the dude during cross-examination began giving a cock-a-mamie answer which required a certain fish to be present in the upper Hudson River to prove that the river was actually healthy.
Except that fish had never lived in the upper Hudson River, and was not a fish you would find in that type of environment.
So there, in just that one instance, were 2 “scientists” caught out peddling pure bull****, because people, that is where the money is.
Fast forward from there to April 5, 1995, Issues Ruling, April 5, 1995, STATE OF NEW YORK: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION – In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM E. DAILEY, INC. for a Mined Land Reclamation Permit, a Permit to Construct an Air Contamination Source; and a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Articles 23, 19 and 17; and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR), where I was both a witness for and representative of one of the parties to be affected by the operation, which meant that I got to cross-examine the Ph.D. “scientist” who was the expert witness for the applicant on groundwater hydrology.
Based in part on that cross-examination, which again determined that the “scientist” was spewing bull****, the applicant ended the hearing voluntarily and came to a settlement with the community members that actually provided them with real protection.
And from there we go to June 26, 1998, and “In the Matter – of – the Application of LANE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for a Mined Land Use Permit, and other required permits for operation of a Hard Rock Mine in the Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, New York,” DEC Project No. 4-3830-00046/00001-0, where again I was both an expert witness on behalf of town residents and a representative as well, which again meant that I got to cross-examine the applicant’s “experts,” in this case a PH.D. who was a department chairman at a local university, his surly, smart-mouthed engineer assistant, and 2 hydrogeologists.
Despite the efforts of the applicant’s lawyer to end my cross-examination, I kept it up for days on end, using read-backs from the transcript to show how an answer this day from one member of the panel was at odds with a previous answer on another day, and that went on and on and on until finally, the PH.D. was forced to admit, on the record in front of a crowd of people that he did inadequate science because he didn’t get paid enough to do it right and there was no more money forthcoming.
So, tell me, people. is it somehow “unfair” to consider that scientists may in fact be liars?
Or is it an act of self-preservation to consider them as such, when they have earned the label?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-192249
Paul Plante says :
So, getting back to “Climate-gate” for a moment, exactly what was that controversy actually about?
Does anyone really have a clue?
More to the point, is there anyone who even cares?
Afterall, we had Jon Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University telling us, quite accurately in my estimation, that, “We don’t see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) emails, it’s too inside baseball.”
But then, on the other hand, and there always is one, isn’t there, we had a much more somber A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, and colleagues in 2010 telling us this, instead:
Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists.
The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology.
Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.
end quotes
Now, that is hyperbolic horse**** for several reasons, starting with the fact that the majority of people in America weren’t even aware of Climate-gate as it was happening, and people do not trust “scientists” for the reason that scientists have proven themselves not worthy of trust, and here I cite as just one example an article in the Albany, New York Times Union entitled “Work raises questions on canal, lawsuit – Fourth season of cleanup begins as dispute between GE, National Grid flares” by Brian Nearing on April 30, 2013, as follows:
Fort Edward – Dredging of PCBs from the Hudson River resumed for the season Monday with two large unanswered questions: Will General Electric Co., which has spent about $1 billion so far on the cleanup, convince a judge that a utility company ought to help pay for the work?
And will PCBs ever be dredged from the river’s tainted Champlain Canal channel?
GE wants National Grid to cover some of the bill because a predecessor company, Niagara Mohawk, unleashed a torrent of PCBs downriver after removing a dam in Fort Edward, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court Friday by GE.
On Monday, GE spokesman Mark Behan said GE believes National Grid bears responsibility for a 1973 decision by Niagara Mohawk to tear down an aging, 1880s-era dam downstream of GE plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
That dam was holding back PCBs that had been released into the river over the years by the plants.
Tons of tainted mud and sediments were swept downstream.
end quotes
Now, as it so happens, I was employed by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation at that time, this being 1975, and it was given to me to go down through all of the documents related to the removal of that dam, as the DEC was at that same time trying to hold GE to account in a hearing that I was collecting evidence for.
The bottom line is that the “scientist,” a college professor somewhere with a Ph.D. acting as a “rented pencil” with a scientific opinion on something available to those who could afford to buy it (science is a bidness, afterall) applied the wrong theory, using “classic impoundment theory” in a situation where the theory clearly was the wrong one to use, which a smart high school student would have determined if he or she had actually first visited the site, which the “scientist” never did, and then studied the history of the Hudson River, which the “scientist” never did, and then looked at the theory itself and what conditions in reality were required for that theory to be applicable.
Then, in the hearing, GE hired another “scientist,” again a professor somewhere with a Ph.D. so he of course was “Dr. Such-and-Such,” which is what makes them so important, and my job was to sit and listen as he was cross-examined by a DEC lawyer, and when he spouted bull****, which is what I as an engineer trust them to do, I would write out a note to the lawyer who would then adjust his questioning.
In this case, the “scientist” visited the site by being flown over it in a small plane.
During his testimony, which was intended to cover the proceedings with smoke in a vain attempt to absolve GE, the dude during cross-examination began giving a cock-a-mamie answer which required a certain fish to be present in the upper Hudson River to prove that the river was actually healthy.
Except that fish had never lived in the upper Hudson River, and was not a fish you would find in that type of environment.
So there, in just that one instance, were 2 “scientists” caught out peddling pure bull****, because people, that is where the money is.
Fast forward from there to April 5, 1995, Issues Ruling, April 5, 1995, STATE OF NEW YORK: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION – In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM E. DAILEY, INC. for a Mined Land Reclamation Permit, a Permit to Construct an Air Contamination Source; and a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Articles 23, 19 and 17; and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR), where I was both a witness for and representative of one of the parties to be affected by the operation, which meant that I got to cross-examine the Ph.D. “scientist” who was the expert witness for the applicant on groundwater hydrology.
Based in part on that cross-examination, which again determined that the “scientist” was spewing bull****, the applicant ended the hearing voluntarily and came to a settlement with the community members that actually provided them with real protection.
And from there we go to June 26, 1998, and “In the Matter – of – the Application of LANE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for a Mined Land Use Permit, and other required permits for operation of a Hard Rock Mine in the Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, New York,” DEC Project No. 4-3830-00046/00001-0, where again I was both an expert witness on behalf of town residents and a representative as well, which again meant that I got to cross-examine the applicant’s “experts,” in this case a PH.D. who was a department chairman at a local university, his surly, smart-mouthed engineer assistant, and 2 hydrogeologists.
Despite the efforts of the applicant’s lawyer to end my cross-examination, I kept it up for days on end, using read-backs from the transcript to show how an answer this day from one member of the panel was at odds with a previous answer on another day, and that went on and on and on until finally, the PH.D. was forced to admit, on the record in front of a crowd of people that he did inadequate science because he didn’t get paid enough to do it right and there was no more money forthcoming.
So, tell me, people. is it somehow “unfair” to consider that scientists may in fact be liars?
Or is it an act of self-preservation to consider them as such, when they have earned the label?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-192249
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 9:46 pm
Paul Plante says :
Yes, this all gets more and more weird by the day.
And the smarmy little Adam Schiff has succeeded in making himself a laughing stock outside of the Beltway with his claims that if Trump does not come to heel when given the command “heel” by Adam Schiff, a mere congressman from Hollywood, California, then Trump is “obstructing justice,” which is horse****.
Somehow, Adam has come to the conclusion, despite all the evidence from our history to the contrary, that as a mere congressman, which is all he is notwithstanding any other titles of royalty he might like to give himself, that Trump as president answers to congressman Adam Schiff, who sees himself as one of Trump’s councilors, which takes us to “Landholder VI” by Oliver Ellsworth in the Connecticut Courant, an early version of the Cape Charles Mirror, on December 10, 1787, as follows:
The President of the United States has no council, etc., says Col. Mason.
His proposed council would have been expensive — they must constantly attend the president, because the president constantly acts.
This council must have been composed of great characters, who could not be kept attending without great salaries, and if their opinions were binding on the president his responsibility would be destroyed — if divided, prevent vigor and dispatch — if not binding, they would be no security.
The states who have had such councils have found them useless, and complain of them as a dead weight.
In others, as in England, the supreme executive advises when and with whom he pleases; if any information is wanted, the heads of the departments who are always at hand can best give it, and from the manner of their appointment will be trustworthy.
Secrecy, vigor, dispatch and responsibility, require that the supreme executive should be one person, and unfettered otherwise than by the laws he is to execute.
end quotes
In our system of government then, smarmy little Adam Schiff is not the overseer of the president.
Too bad he is ignorant of that fact.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
Yes, this all gets more and more weird by the day.
And the smarmy little Adam Schiff has succeeded in making himself a laughing stock outside of the Beltway with his claims that if Trump does not come to heel when given the command “heel” by Adam Schiff, a mere congressman from Hollywood, California, then Trump is “obstructing justice,” which is horse****.
Somehow, Adam has come to the conclusion, despite all the evidence from our history to the contrary, that as a mere congressman, which is all he is notwithstanding any other titles of royalty he might like to give himself, that Trump as president answers to congressman Adam Schiff, who sees himself as one of Trump’s councilors, which takes us to “Landholder VI” by Oliver Ellsworth in the Connecticut Courant, an early version of the Cape Charles Mirror, on December 10, 1787, as follows:
The President of the United States has no council, etc., says Col. Mason.
His proposed council would have been expensive — they must constantly attend the president, because the president constantly acts.
This council must have been composed of great characters, who could not be kept attending without great salaries, and if their opinions were binding on the president his responsibility would be destroyed — if divided, prevent vigor and dispatch — if not binding, they would be no security.
The states who have had such councils have found them useless, and complain of them as a dead weight.
In others, as in England, the supreme executive advises when and with whom he pleases; if any information is wanted, the heads of the departments who are always at hand can best give it, and from the manner of their appointment will be trustworthy.
Secrecy, vigor, dispatch and responsibility, require that the supreme executive should be one person, and unfettered otherwise than by the laws he is to execute.
end quotes
In our system of government then, smarmy little Adam Schiff is not the overseer of the president.
Too bad he is ignorant of that fact.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 27, 2019 at 4:39 pm
Paul Plante says :
Adam Schiff is the living epitome and poster child of what a complete waste of time, tax payer dollars and government resources it has been putting the Democrats in charge of OUR United States House of Representatives, where that worthless faction led by “NANCY NO” Pelosi of ultra-liberal and quite whacked-out San Francisco, California, where she is treated as their queen, has accomplished virtually nothing of lasting positive consequence for WE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE who are not Democrats and do not drink their toxic Kool-Aid, except to divide the nation right down the middle into those who find the Democrats quite repellent, versus those who don’t like Trump, as a result of the efforts of the Democrats and Adam Schiff to demonize Trump every day of the week and twice at least on the Sunday morning talk shows, where the Democrats try to make us and keep us angry at Trump so we will be stupid and vote Democrat come next November.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
Adam Schiff is the living epitome and poster child of what a complete waste of time, tax payer dollars and government resources it has been putting the Democrats in charge of OUR United States House of Representatives, where that worthless faction led by “NANCY NO” Pelosi of ultra-liberal and quite whacked-out San Francisco, California, where she is treated as their queen, has accomplished virtually nothing of lasting positive consequence for WE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE who are not Democrats and do not drink their toxic Kool-Aid, except to divide the nation right down the middle into those who find the Democrats quite repellent, versus those who don’t like Trump, as a result of the efforts of the Democrats and Adam Schiff to demonize Trump every day of the week and twice at least on the Sunday morning talk shows, where the Democrats try to make us and keep us angry at Trump so we will be stupid and vote Democrat come next November.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 28, 2019 at 10:55 am
Paul Plante says :
One would think that if Adam Schiff was really concerned about the “national interest,” as opposed to his own considerable personal political interests, that he would be leading the effort to get to the bottom of whether Joe Biden was doing some hinky stuff with Ukraine while he was Obama’s vice president, as opposed to leading a massive effort at taxpayer expense to conduct a white-wash and cover-up to protect Joe Biden and the Democrat party.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
One would think that if Adam Schiff was really concerned about the “national interest,” as opposed to his own considerable personal political interests, that he would be leading the effort to get to the bottom of whether Joe Biden was doing some hinky stuff with Ukraine while he was Obama’s vice president, as opposed to leading a massive effort at taxpayer expense to conduct a white-wash and cover-up to protect Joe Biden and the Democrat party.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 28, 2019 at 8:18 pm
Paul Plante says :
I heard Adam Schiff on the radio news this morning, and frankly, the dude sounds like he is losing it big time.
What Schiff said that had me thinking he is going bonkers was that the only inference that can be taken from Mr. Kupperman being a no-show at Schiff’s hearing today was that Trump was trying to cover up something criminal!
What horsecrap!
POLITICO caught that action in an article entitled “Schiff warns Trump is inviting impeachment by blocking witnesses – The Intelligence Committee chairman vowed Democrats will not be slowed by legal battles in their march toward impeachment” by Kyle Cheney on 10/28/2019, as follows:
President Donald Trump’s effort to block a former national security aide from testifying in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is strengthening the case for impeachment based on obstruction of Congress, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Monday.
But more significantly, Schiff said Trump’s direction that Kupperman ignore Congress’ subpoena — along with other witnesses the White House has sought to block — has formed “a very powerful case against the president for obstruction, an article of impeachment based on obstruction.”
Schiff also argued that the president is seeking to block Kupperman because he is concerned about a high-level source corroborating damning testimony that Trump pressured Ukraine to open investigations of his political rivals — and condition military aid and a White House visit on bending the European ally to his will.
end quotes
And there I have to say WHOA, Adam, wait a minute – Joe Biden is not Trump’s “political rival.”
Joe Biden has held himself out to the American people as a candidate for our highest office in this land, that of United States president, a position which by OUR Constitution is to take care that the laws, OUR laws, are enforced, and if Joe Biden cannot do that because he is corrupt, or compromised by a foreign power, then we the American people have both a need and a right to now about it.
So that, Adam, is a real cheap and quite shabby excuse for your cover-up and white-wash of Joe Biden that you are conducting here by going after Trump, instead of Joe Biden, that it is wrong for Trump to seek evidence that Joe Biden is corrupt because Joe , in your empty words, is a “political rival,” which takes us back to that POLITICO article as follows:
Schiff’s comments came shortly after Republicans derided the impeachment inquiry as a farce built on hearsay.
“Every single witness who talked to the president, each and every time they’ve said he did nothing wrong, he’s innocent of any charges.” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told reporters.
“It’s always people who talked to people who have talked to other people who think that he might have meant this.”
“When you get direct evidence, this president is not only innocent, but he certainly has not done anything impeachable and it’s time we bring this charade to a close.”
end quotes
And that is the latest from Adam Schiff’s “HEAR-SAY GATE SAGA”, where Trump is to be impeached because somebody overheard someone else telling a third persons what a fourth person said they heard from a fifth person about something Trump was said to have either said or done, which is why Trump should be impeached.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
I heard Adam Schiff on the radio news this morning, and frankly, the dude sounds like he is losing it big time.
What Schiff said that had me thinking he is going bonkers was that the only inference that can be taken from Mr. Kupperman being a no-show at Schiff’s hearing today was that Trump was trying to cover up something criminal!
What horsecrap!
POLITICO caught that action in an article entitled “Schiff warns Trump is inviting impeachment by blocking witnesses – The Intelligence Committee chairman vowed Democrats will not be slowed by legal battles in their march toward impeachment” by Kyle Cheney on 10/28/2019, as follows:
President Donald Trump’s effort to block a former national security aide from testifying in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is strengthening the case for impeachment based on obstruction of Congress, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Monday.
But more significantly, Schiff said Trump’s direction that Kupperman ignore Congress’ subpoena — along with other witnesses the White House has sought to block — has formed “a very powerful case against the president for obstruction, an article of impeachment based on obstruction.”
Schiff also argued that the president is seeking to block Kupperman because he is concerned about a high-level source corroborating damning testimony that Trump pressured Ukraine to open investigations of his political rivals — and condition military aid and a White House visit on bending the European ally to his will.
end quotes
And there I have to say WHOA, Adam, wait a minute – Joe Biden is not Trump’s “political rival.”
Joe Biden has held himself out to the American people as a candidate for our highest office in this land, that of United States president, a position which by OUR Constitution is to take care that the laws, OUR laws, are enforced, and if Joe Biden cannot do that because he is corrupt, or compromised by a foreign power, then we the American people have both a need and a right to now about it.
So that, Adam, is a real cheap and quite shabby excuse for your cover-up and white-wash of Joe Biden that you are conducting here by going after Trump, instead of Joe Biden, that it is wrong for Trump to seek evidence that Joe Biden is corrupt because Joe , in your empty words, is a “political rival,” which takes us back to that POLITICO article as follows:
Schiff’s comments came shortly after Republicans derided the impeachment inquiry as a farce built on hearsay.
“Every single witness who talked to the president, each and every time they’ve said he did nothing wrong, he’s innocent of any charges.” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told reporters.
“It’s always people who talked to people who have talked to other people who think that he might have meant this.”
“When you get direct evidence, this president is not only innocent, but he certainly has not done anything impeachable and it’s time we bring this charade to a close.”
end quotes
And that is the latest from Adam Schiff’s “HEAR-SAY GATE SAGA”, where Trump is to be impeached because somebody overheard someone else telling a third persons what a fourth person said they heard from a fifth person about something Trump was said to have either said or done, which is why Trump should be impeached.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 30, 2019 at 8:57 pm
Paul Plante says :
“God knows that fools and knaves have voice enough in government already; it is to be hoped these wise prophesiers of evil would not wish to give them a constitutional privilege to send members in proportion to their numbers.”
Those words were posted on December 12, 1787 in the “Cato” Essay in the Country Journal and Advertiser, Poughkeepsie with regard to our House of Representatives, and based on the show the Democrats in that House are giving us today with these endless Trump Impeachment Inquiries and Investigations, we have more of them now, then ever.
With respect to these never-ending hearings, consider the Washington Post article “Democrats unveil procedures for Trump’s impeachment inquiry, rebutting GOP attacks” by Mike DeBonis on 29 October 2019, where we are treated to the following:
House Democrats unveiled new procedures for the impeachment inquiry of President Trump on Tuesday, responding to Republican demands for due process by setting out rules for future public hearings delving into whether Trump should be removed from office.
The resolution backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hands the lead role to the House Intelligence Committee and its chairman, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who would have broad latitude to organize extended questioning of potential public witnesses.
end quotes
So, “NANCY NO” Pelosi is keeping Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff in the spotlight, primarily because it is good for Democrat fund-raising efforts to do so, given Adam’s status as a top Democrat fundraiser, with him reporting as of 09/30/2019 that he has raised $25,071,876.
So what exactly is going on here, besides the Democrats still fixin’ to get with it with respect to actually voting to actually impeach Trump as opposed to voting to continue talking about impeaching Trump because they have no cause to do so, and need to keep hunting for one?
According to the Washington Post, which knows these things because the Democrats use them as a media outlet, we have this to consider:
Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Tuesday the resolution “outlines the next steps in this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public-facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process for transferring evidence to the Judiciary Committee once they are completed.”
“The president’s Republican allies in Congress have tried to hide the president’s conduct, but the American people will now see the facts firsthand,” he said.
end quotes
We’re going to see the facts firsthand?
Really?
And when might that be?
Getting back to the Washington Post:
The drafting of the procedures took place among a tight circle of close Pelosi confidants, leaving rank-and-file lawmakers and even some top Democratic leaders in the dark.
end quotes
HUSH!
SHHHHH!
KEEP IT QUIET!
WE NEED THE SUSPENSE!
And the game goes on and on and on and on and on!
But wait, there is always more to come in this bizarre story, and it is as follows, to wit:
Addressing reporters Tuesday morning, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he had not yet scheduled a vote on the resolution — contradicting Pelosi, who pledged to hold a vote this week.
“I have not read it yet; the members have not read it yet,” Hoyer said, showing some frustration at a meeting with reporters.
“We’re going to have to consider whether or not it’s ready to go on Thursday.”
“I hope that is the case.”
end quotes
So, from that we can infer that they are still in the stage of fixin’ to get with it, perhaps the penultimate stage of fixing to get with it as opposed to actually getting with it, but then again, the way this show has been going, perhaps not, which takes us back to the Washington Post, as follows:
Pelosi announced plans to vote on the resolution in a letter to Democratic members Monday, and, according to three House aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions, she has kept a tight leash on the process of drafting the measure — excluding Hoyer and other leaders.
end quotes
It’s all about politics and timing, people – nothing of substance, just appearance – if we will only give the Democrats a bit more time, they will finally find the dirt on Trump they need to impeach him, and we are just supposed to sit here and be patient, which is horsecrap, and that horse crap brings us to this horse crap from the Washington Post article, to wit:
Democratic leaders have been careful not to characterize the measure as authorizing the impeachment inquiry, something they say has been underway already for weeks without a House vote.
“We have an inquiry looking at whether articles of impeachment are justified by the facts,” Hoyer said.
“We’ve been doing that.”
“We are doing it.”
“We’re going to continue to do it.”
“This is about process as to when we move to out of the investigatory phase, which we’ve been in, into a phase where we have public hearings.”
“That’s what it is.”
“No more.”
“No less.”
end quotes
So, still smoke, people, but so far, no sighting of fire has yet been made, nor is it supposed to be, because this is a silly game, as we can see from the following:
Several Democrats said Tuesday they believed the vote would undermine Republicans, who for weeks have raised objections to the process Democrats have undertaken and have called for a formal vote on launching impeachment proceedings.
“The message this week is going to be: You asked for it, you got it,” said Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.).
Several members who attended a caucus meeting held at the Democratic National Committee Tuesday morning said they were ready to vote to formalize the next step in the impeachment investigation — including some in swing districts where the vote could be a political liability.
“I have no qualms about taking a vote,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), a freshman running in a district Trump previously won by 7 points.
“We’ve been clearly in an impeachment inquiry, and laying out the plans for the next step, I think, is a helpful thing to do for the American people to understand the parameters of the public hearings.”
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a veteran lawmaker whose district voted for Trump by 5 points in 2016, also said he planned to support the measure: “We fully support a thorough investigation and we’re going to continue doing what we’re doing.”
end quotes
So, how the heck many “steps” are there anyway in an impeachment inquiry besides in this case a veritable plethora of them?
Is this a political version of climbing the stairway to heaven step by step by step ad infinitum?
And is this silly show starring Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff ever going to end, or will his witch hunts go on forever?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
“God knows that fools and knaves have voice enough in government already; it is to be hoped these wise prophesiers of evil would not wish to give them a constitutional privilege to send members in proportion to their numbers.”
Those words were posted on December 12, 1787 in the “Cato” Essay in the Country Journal and Advertiser, Poughkeepsie with regard to our House of Representatives, and based on the show the Democrats in that House are giving us today with these endless Trump Impeachment Inquiries and Investigations, we have more of them now, then ever.
With respect to these never-ending hearings, consider the Washington Post article “Democrats unveil procedures for Trump’s impeachment inquiry, rebutting GOP attacks” by Mike DeBonis on 29 October 2019, where we are treated to the following:
House Democrats unveiled new procedures for the impeachment inquiry of President Trump on Tuesday, responding to Republican demands for due process by setting out rules for future public hearings delving into whether Trump should be removed from office.
The resolution backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hands the lead role to the House Intelligence Committee and its chairman, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who would have broad latitude to organize extended questioning of potential public witnesses.
end quotes
So, “NANCY NO” Pelosi is keeping Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff in the spotlight, primarily because it is good for Democrat fund-raising efforts to do so, given Adam’s status as a top Democrat fundraiser, with him reporting as of 09/30/2019 that he has raised $25,071,876.
So what exactly is going on here, besides the Democrats still fixin’ to get with it with respect to actually voting to actually impeach Trump as opposed to voting to continue talking about impeaching Trump because they have no cause to do so, and need to keep hunting for one?
According to the Washington Post, which knows these things because the Democrats use them as a media outlet, we have this to consider:
Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Tuesday the resolution “outlines the next steps in this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public-facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process for transferring evidence to the Judiciary Committee once they are completed.”
“The president’s Republican allies in Congress have tried to hide the president’s conduct, but the American people will now see the facts firsthand,” he said.
end quotes
We’re going to see the facts firsthand?
Really?
And when might that be?
Getting back to the Washington Post:
The drafting of the procedures took place among a tight circle of close Pelosi confidants, leaving rank-and-file lawmakers and even some top Democratic leaders in the dark.
end quotes
HUSH!
SHHHHH!
KEEP IT QUIET!
WE NEED THE SUSPENSE!
And the game goes on and on and on and on and on!
But wait, there is always more to come in this bizarre story, and it is as follows, to wit:
Addressing reporters Tuesday morning, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he had not yet scheduled a vote on the resolution — contradicting Pelosi, who pledged to hold a vote this week.
“I have not read it yet; the members have not read it yet,” Hoyer said, showing some frustration at a meeting with reporters.
“We’re going to have to consider whether or not it’s ready to go on Thursday.”
“I hope that is the case.”
end quotes
So, from that we can infer that they are still in the stage of fixin’ to get with it, perhaps the penultimate stage of fixing to get with it as opposed to actually getting with it, but then again, the way this show has been going, perhaps not, which takes us back to the Washington Post, as follows:
Pelosi announced plans to vote on the resolution in a letter to Democratic members Monday, and, according to three House aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions, she has kept a tight leash on the process of drafting the measure — excluding Hoyer and other leaders.
end quotes
It’s all about politics and timing, people – nothing of substance, just appearance – if we will only give the Democrats a bit more time, they will finally find the dirt on Trump they need to impeach him, and we are just supposed to sit here and be patient, which is horsecrap, and that horse crap brings us to this horse crap from the Washington Post article, to wit:
Democratic leaders have been careful not to characterize the measure as authorizing the impeachment inquiry, something they say has been underway already for weeks without a House vote.
“We have an inquiry looking at whether articles of impeachment are justified by the facts,” Hoyer said.
“We’ve been doing that.”
“We are doing it.”
“We’re going to continue to do it.”
“This is about process as to when we move to out of the investigatory phase, which we’ve been in, into a phase where we have public hearings.”
“That’s what it is.”
“No more.”
“No less.”
end quotes
So, still smoke, people, but so far, no sighting of fire has yet been made, nor is it supposed to be, because this is a silly game, as we can see from the following:
Several Democrats said Tuesday they believed the vote would undermine Republicans, who for weeks have raised objections to the process Democrats have undertaken and have called for a formal vote on launching impeachment proceedings.
“The message this week is going to be: You asked for it, you got it,” said Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.).
Several members who attended a caucus meeting held at the Democratic National Committee Tuesday morning said they were ready to vote to formalize the next step in the impeachment investigation — including some in swing districts where the vote could be a political liability.
“I have no qualms about taking a vote,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), a freshman running in a district Trump previously won by 7 points.
“We’ve been clearly in an impeachment inquiry, and laying out the plans for the next step, I think, is a helpful thing to do for the American people to understand the parameters of the public hearings.”
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a veteran lawmaker whose district voted for Trump by 5 points in 2016, also said he planned to support the measure: “We fully support a thorough investigation and we’re going to continue doing what we’re doing.”
end quotes
So, how the heck many “steps” are there anyway in an impeachment inquiry besides in this case a veritable plethora of them?
Is this a political version of climbing the stairway to heaven step by step by step ad infinitum?
And is this silly show starring Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff ever going to end, or will his witch hunts go on forever?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 2, 2019 at 9:26 pm
Paul Plante says :
Good God, but how very tedious and absolutely silly this endless Democrat “impeachment inquiry” bull**** is, and what a surreal show the Democrats are giving us, as they prove on a daily basis what a mistake it was to put those clowns in charge of the House of Representatives, as we can see from the Fox News article “Two House Democrats break ranks with Pelosi on impeachment rules vote” by Tyler Olson on 31 October 2019, to wit:
Two House Democrats broke ranks with their party leadership on Thursday’s highly-contentious vote for a resolution setting the rules for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
end quotes
Now, to see just how very stupid this all is, we just need to focus on the phrase “contentious vote for a resolution setting the rules for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.”
Haven’t they been conducting an impeachment inquiry into Trump since the 2016 presidential election?
Isn’t that what all the FBI investigations were about – getting criminal dirt, or any other kind of dirt on Trump that the Democrats could use to impeach him?
Isn’t that what the Mueller Hearings were all about?
So what the hell are these hearings about then?
Have they found even a shred of evidence of something that is impeachable?
For a glimpse at that answer, let’s go back to the Fox News article as follows:
The resolution passed 232-196 but lacked votes from Reps. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., who has long expressed skepticism about impeachment, and Collin Peterson, D-Minn., whose district Trump won by 31 points.
“At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges,” Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News.
Van Drew said that although he “feels concerned with many of the allegations related to the president,” he doesn’t think it’s enough to warrant Trump’s removal from office.
end quotes
So, there is one Democrat who is thinking straight, anyway.
But what about the rest of them?
Let’s go back to FOX and see what’s up, to wit:
Other Democrats said their support for Thursday’s resolution was not necessarily an indication of how they would vote on possible impeachment articles.
Freshman Rep. Kendra Horn, D-Okla., announced she would vote for the resolution while making clear it was not a vote for impeachment — just to authorize the rules for impeachment hearings.
end quotes
Ah, okay, sure, Kendra – and thanks for making it very clear for all of us who are wondering why the Democrats are wasting our time and tax dollars on this cavalcade of horsecrap what exactly it is that is going on here – you’re not voting to actually impeach Trump; to the contrary, you are voting to get with impeaching Trump at some time in the future based on your premise that if you conduct enough witch hunts and fishing expeditions, you might eventually uncover something of actual substance to impeach Trump with, but in the meantime, it is just a silly political game you are playing, which takes us back to Fox News, as follow:
In a letter to Democratic colleagues Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she was bringing the rules resolution to the floor specifically to take that talking point away from Republicans.
“We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives,” Pelosi said.
end quotes
Obstructing the House of Representatives?
At what?
Obstructing the Democrats in the House of Representatives from reducing the Office of President to a sniveling creature of theirs so that the Office of President is merely an appendage of the House of Representatives to be controlled at all times by the Democrats?
Getting back to Fox News:
Republican representatives, however, have not been satisfied with the move, saying that the impeachment inquiry is already discredited by the secret hearings and bias against Trump from Democrats.
“It’s clear Pelosi needs to declare a mistrial,” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said Tuesday as he and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., of stopping a witness from answering certain Republican questions during a deposition.
“This has been a tainted process from the start.”
“What happened today confirms even worse just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process, denying the ability for Republicans to even ask basic questions that are critical to the heart of whether or not a President of the United States is impeached.”
Rep. Ross Spano, R-Fla., also criticized the resolution, noting Republicans will be unable to subpoena witnesses without the approval of Schiff, echoing a criticism other Republicans have leveled about the impeachment rules resolution released Tuesday.
end quotes
So, kiss due process of law good-bye, people of America, when a little twerp like the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, Congressman of Hollywood, California can use his position as a committee chairman to so pervert process by impeding and obstructing witness testimony that it seems as if we are no longer living in the United States of America under rule of law, but have instead reverted to the status of a third-world banana republic ****hole.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134
Paul Plante says :
Good God, but how very tedious and absolutely silly this endless Democrat “impeachment inquiry” bull**** is, and what a surreal show the Democrats are giving us, as they prove on a daily basis what a mistake it was to put those clowns in charge of the House of Representatives, as we can see from the Fox News article “Two House Democrats break ranks with Pelosi on impeachment rules vote” by Tyler Olson on 31 October 2019, to wit:
Two House Democrats broke ranks with their party leadership on Thursday’s highly-contentious vote for a resolution setting the rules for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
end quotes
Now, to see just how very stupid this all is, we just need to focus on the phrase “contentious vote for a resolution setting the rules for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.”
Haven’t they been conducting an impeachment inquiry into Trump since the 2016 presidential election?
Isn’t that what all the FBI investigations were about – getting criminal dirt, or any other kind of dirt on Trump that the Democrats could use to impeach him?
Isn’t that what the Mueller Hearings were all about?
So what the hell are these hearings about then?
Have they found even a shred of evidence of something that is impeachable?
For a glimpse at that answer, let’s go back to the Fox News article as follows:
The resolution passed 232-196 but lacked votes from Reps. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., who has long expressed skepticism about impeachment, and Collin Peterson, D-Minn., whose district Trump won by 31 points.
“At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges,” Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News.
Van Drew said that although he “feels concerned with many of the allegations related to the president,” he doesn’t think it’s enough to warrant Trump’s removal from office.
end quotes
So, there is one Democrat who is thinking straight, anyway.
But what about the rest of them?
Let’s go back to FOX and see what’s up, to wit:
Other Democrats said their support for Thursday’s resolution was not necessarily an indication of how they would vote on possible impeachment articles.
Freshman Rep. Kendra Horn, D-Okla., announced she would vote for the resolution while making clear it was not a vote for impeachment — just to authorize the rules for impeachment hearings.
end quotes
Ah, okay, sure, Kendra – and thanks for making it very clear for all of us who are wondering why the Democrats are wasting our time and tax dollars on this cavalcade of horsecrap what exactly it is that is going on here – you’re not voting to actually impeach Trump; to the contrary, you are voting to get with impeaching Trump at some time in the future based on your premise that if you conduct enough witch hunts and fishing expeditions, you might eventually uncover something of actual substance to impeach Trump with, but in the meantime, it is just a silly political game you are playing, which takes us back to Fox News, as follow:
In a letter to Democratic colleagues Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she was bringing the rules resolution to the floor specifically to take that talking point away from Republicans.
“We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives,” Pelosi said.
end quotes
Obstructing the House of Representatives?
At what?
Obstructing the Democrats in the House of Representatives from reducing the Office of President to a sniveling creature of theirs so that the Office of President is merely an appendage of the House of Representatives to be controlled at all times by the Democrats?
Getting back to Fox News:
Republican representatives, however, have not been satisfied with the move, saying that the impeachment inquiry is already discredited by the secret hearings and bias against Trump from Democrats.
“It’s clear Pelosi needs to declare a mistrial,” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said Tuesday as he and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., of stopping a witness from answering certain Republican questions during a deposition.
“This has been a tainted process from the start.”
“What happened today confirms even worse just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process, denying the ability for Republicans to even ask basic questions that are critical to the heart of whether or not a President of the United States is impeached.”
Rep. Ross Spano, R-Fla., also criticized the resolution, noting Republicans will be unable to subpoena witnesses without the approval of Schiff, echoing a criticism other Republicans have leveled about the impeachment rules resolution released Tuesday.
end quotes
So, kiss due process of law good-bye, people of America, when a little twerp like the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, Congressman of Hollywood, California can use his position as a committee chairman to so pervert process by impeding and obstructing witness testimony that it seems as if we are no longer living in the United States of America under rule of law, but have instead reverted to the status of a third-world banana republic ****hole.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-154134