Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including deniers. Deniers however, do not have scientific evidence to support their positions, rather a blind adherence to Right Wing mantras, which is keep the campaign contributions rolling in from Big Oil, and Coal.
Please explain how and why we have seen a 1.9% increase in the average world wide temperature of the earth in the last 60 years? Why don't you show the Environmental Scientists how wrong they are by providing another example of changes in the earths average temperature by 1.9 degrees in a 60 years span? What other time did the Earth go though what we are now going though which has occurred over the past 3000 years? In the past, such changes have taken hundreds, or thousands of years?

There are far more changes going on than simply coral bleaching, which incidentally are the nurseries of many fish species, Ocean temperatures are rising, as proved every day, Ocean currents are changing, fish species are slowly dying off or moving to cooler waters, W*****r p*****ns are changing, becoming more violent, and frequent. Plant species on earth are dying off, farmers are having to change their planting schedules, and what they plant. Insect populations are expanding, and moving northwards, causing massive problems with tree populations due to boring beetles k*****g off huge numbers of trees. These migrating species affect humans, as we have seen with outbreaks of Zika, spread by a specific type of mosquito which is taking advantage of the increasing temperatures and expanding its territory. Then of course we have the melting ice caps, and the warming of ocean temperatures, which are melting the underside of the ice caps, causing the rising ocean levels around the earth. One additional problem with rising ocean temperatures is that the ocean volume expands as it gets warmer, so you have the problem with more water in the ocean from melting ice, and expanding water volume from warmer temperatures. Then, to add insult to injury, the melting ice caps are causing a slight shift in the earth's tilt which has been detected by scientists.

How is it that you can listen to a bunch of GOP politicians who are putting continuing political contributions to their campaign funds over your and our nation's welfare? How can you ignore the opinions of scientists trained to observe change, and analysis of our now rapidly changing climate?

The amazing thing about deniers is that addressing G****l W*****g would not disrupt economies, but rather result in the creation of new and better industries, jobs, and scientific developments, benefiting all of humanity, now, and in the future.

Your welcome
Here's more
DAILY COMMENT
THE DANGEROUS ACCEPTANCE OF DONALD TRUMP
By Adam Gopnik , May 20, 2016
Columnists and magazines that a month ago were saying #NeverTrump are now vibrating with the frisson of his audacity.
Columnists and magazines that a month ago were saying #NeverTrump are now vibrating with the frisson of his audacity.
PHOTOGRAPH BY PETER VAN AGTMAEL / MAGNUM
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, / As, to be h**ed, needs but to be seen,” the poet Alexander Pope wrote, in lines that were once, as they said back in the day, imprinted on the mind of every schoolboy. Pope continued, “Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, / we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” The three-part process by which the gross becomes the taken for granted has been on matchlessly grim view this past week in the ascent of Donald Trump. First merely endured by those in the Republican Party, with pained grimaces and faint bleats of reluctance, bare toleration passed quickly over into blind, partisan allegiance—he’s going to be the nominee, after all, and so is our boy. Then a weird kind of pity arose, directed not so much at him (he supplies his own self-pity) as at his supporters, on the premise that their existence somehow makes him a champion for the dispossessed, although the evidence indicates that his followers are mostly stirred by familiar racial and cultural resentments, of which Trump has been a single-minded spokesperson.

Now for the embrace. One by one, people who had not merely resisted him before but called him by his proper name—who, until a month ago, were determined to oppose a man they rightly described as a con artist and a pathological liar—are suddenly getting on board. Columnists and magazines that a month ago were saying #NeverTrump are now vibrating with the frisson of his audacity, fawning over him or at least thrilling to his rising poll numbers and telling one another, “We can control him.’


No, you can’t. One can argue about whether to call him a f*****t or an authoritarian populist or a grotesque joke made in a nightmare shared between Philip K. Dick and Tom Wolfe, but under any label Trump is a declared enemy of the liberal constitutional order of the United States—the order that has made it, in fact, the great and plural country that it already is. He announces his enmity to America by word and action every day. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies, made only worse by the frivolity and t***sience of the tone of those threats. He makes his enmity to American values clear when he suggests that the Presidency holds absolute power, through which he will be able to end opposition—whether by questioning the ownership of newspapers or talking about changing libel laws or threatening to take away F.C.C. licenses. To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.

And Trump announces his enmity in the choice of his companions. The Murdoch media conglomerate has been ordered to acquiesce; it’s no surprise that it has. But Trump’s other fellow-travellers include Roger Stone, the Republican political operative and dirty-tricks maven, while his venues have included the broadcasts of Alex Jones, a ranting conspiracy theorist who believes in a G*******t plot wherein “an alien force not of this world is attacking humanity”—not to mention Jones’s marketing of the theory that Michelle Obama is a t**********e who murdered Joan Rivers. These are not harmless oddballs Trump is flirting with. This is not the lunatic fringe. These are the lunatics.

Ted Cruz called Trump a pathological liar, the kind who does not know the difference between lies and t***h. Wh**ever the clinical diagnosis, we do appear to be getting, in place of the once famous Big Lie of the nineteen-thirties, a sordid blizzard of lies. The Big Lie was fit for a time of processionals and nighttime rallies, and films that featured them. The blizzard of lies is made for Twitter and the quick hit of an impulse culture. Trump’s lies arrive with such rapidity that before one can be refuted a new one comes to take its place. It wasn’t his voice on that tape of pitiful self-promotion. O.K., it was—but he never mocked the handicapped reporter, he was merely imitating an obsequious one. The media eventually moves on, shrugging helplessly, to the next lie. Then the next lie, and the next. If the lies are bizarre enough and frequent enough, they provoke little more than a nervous giggle and a cry of “Well, guess he’s changed the rules!”

He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was. At each step of the way, the shock was tempered by acceptance. It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the C*******ts, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate l*****ts, who were really indistinguishable from the N**is. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.


The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power. The right thing to do, for everyone who believes in liberal democracy, is to gather around and work to defeat him on E******n Day. Instead, we seem to be either engaged in parochial feuding or caught by habits of tribal hatred so ingrained that they have become impossible to escape even at moments of maximum danger. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind bringing down the Democratic Party to prevent it from surrendering to corporate forces—and yet he may be increasing the possibility of rule-by-billionaire.

There is a difference between major and minor issues, and between primary and secondary values. Many of us think that it would be terrible if the radical-revisionist reading of the Second Amendment created by the Heller decision eight years ago was kept in place in a constitutional court; many on the other side think it would be terrible if that other radical decision, Roe v. Wade, continued to be found to be compatible with the constitutional order. What we all should agree on is that the one thing worse would be to have no constitutional order left to argue about.

If Trump came to power, there is a decent chance that the American experiment would be over. This is not a hyperbolic prediction; it is not a hysterical prediction; it is simply a candid reading of what history tells us happens in countries with leaders like Trump. Countries don’t really recover from being taken over by unstable authoritarian nationalists of any political bent, left or right—not by Peróns or Castros or Putins or Francos or Lenins or fill in the blanks. The nation may survive, but the wound to hope and order will never fully heal. Ask Argentinians or Chileans or Venezuelans or Russians or Italians—or Germans. The national psyche never gets over learning that its institutions are that fragile and their ability to resist a dictator that weak. If he can rout the Republican Party in a week by having effectively secured the nomination, ask yourself what Trump could do with the American government if he had a mandate. Before those famous schoolroom lines, Pope made another observation, which was that even as you recognize that the world is a mixed-up place, you still can’t fool yourself about the difference between the acceptable and the unacceptable: “Fools! who from hence into the notion fall / That vice or virtue there is none at all,” he wrote. “Is there no black or white? / Ask your own heart, and nothing is so plain; / ’Tis to mistake them, costs the time and pain.” The pain of not seeing that black is black soon enough will be ours, and the time to recognize this is now.

CAFR1 NATIONAL POST

A Few points Not to Forget about the WTC Complex and 911 Event

by Walter Burien - CAFR1
04/13/16


I make my comments as a prior tenant of WTC1 from 1978-1980.

Watch as the tower falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OASbBr99heQ

You will clearly see the effect of the squib-charges "systematically" going off several floors (8 to 10 floor) below the collapse line on the way down from both sides of the tower visible. When the squib charges explode, the ones you can see that are not yet masked by collapsing debris, they send out the distinctive puffs of smoke / dust blasting out and through the widows. The heat signatures on floors where no fires were burning, combined with spectral light "element" analysis seen establishes those "puffs of smoke" as coming rather conclusively from squib-charges going off. Done so to weaken the entire structure for demolition collapse.

The towers were built so that the core was designed to act as a guide post for the floors suspended from the core in the event of catastrophic failure. The core was designed to be left standing in the event of catastrophic failure. This was done to prevent the tower from falling "over" and hitting 20 or so other buildings. There are no if's or buts per the core remaining standing excluding controlled demolition below the impact damage zone, end of story period.

The WTC towers, Port Authority of NY and NJ, the owners of the complex knew the towers needed to be demolished. It came to their attention back in 1978 when asbestos was banned that the several hundred tons of asbestos fire insulation used on the internal structure was a BIG problem. As the asbestos broke down over time, the fine particles could circulate throughout the building exposing the tenants to the asbestos and law suits could amount in the billions of dollars.

In 1980 they installed a very expensive special air filtration system in the two towers to curtail spread of those fine particle. (I note also it was determined that if a level 4 or 5 hurricane with maintained winds of over 215 MPH made a direct hit on the towers they in high probability would not be able to withstand the millions of metric tons of wind force hitting the flat surfaced side walls) Port Authority then commissioned in 1979 for an estimate of the cost to demolish the towers. The price came back at 8 billion dollars and that did not include the law suits that could amount into extra billions of dollars from individuals who claimed they were damaged by being exposed to the asbestos when the towers were demolished.

Well, the "staged" collapse on 911, solved that problem and they got two bangs for the buck. It also initiated the go ahead for the wars in the middle east which I note were on the drawing boards over at the Pentagon and Whitehouse to be initiated on the exact dates the first invasions took place, and those dates were set 6-months before the towers collapsed.

Additionally the Port Authority was trying to sell the WTC complex after realizing their problem starting in 1978. No takers..

Then comes along Larry Silverstein in 2000, a joint US and Israeli citizen that takes out a 99-year lease for 3-billion dollars that required monthly payments of about 37-million dollars a month. He then secures a double indemnity insurance policy for "terrorism attacks" with the policy providing a maximum total coverage of 7-billion dollars. The policy issued and the signed ink was not even dry yet on that policy and down goes the towers and in goes Silverstien's claim for 7-billion. He settled on a 6.5 billion dollar payout and only had 4-months pay-ins to the rental contract. What a payout on about a 148-million dollar pay-in that in effect was already reimbursed him and extra from the rents being paid from the tenants.

Did Silverstien contribute as a gift $$$$$ directly to the re-building by Port Authority of NY and NJ of the new towers? No, but he did though as a business deal put up 1.4 billion dollars in advance payments for construction to lock in the prime and substantial rental space in the new complex. The complex is being rebuilt primarily at taxpayer's expense, offset by advance lessees payments - http://gfoa.net/cafr/COA2012/NewYorkAndNewJerseyPortAuthorityNJ.pdf

Page 84 of the .pdf document per Silverstein shows total in, and a search in the .pdf document for WTC or Silverstein will bring up many other relevant comments made in the report.

I note on the new WTC Tower design, not a flat side surface design. The new air-dynamic angled design can withstand up to 270 MPH winds. (They were not going to make that mistake of a flat side-wall design twice. Hurricane level 4 or 5 direct hit, not a problem now.. )

Math for Silverstein: 6.5 billion dollars (payout) - 1.4 billion dollars (advance lessees payments) = a Big smile on his face.

And the Beat Goes on!

TREASON: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612


Sent FYI and Truly Yours,


Walter J. Burien, Jr. - CAFR1.com
Saint Johns, AZ 85936

Tel: (928) 458-5854 Arizona
___________________________________

Ruling let Texas curb v**er rights

Photo ID law survives legal defeats following high court’s decision.

BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — Hours after the Supreme Court struck down a core part of the V****g Rights Act in 2013, Texas put into effect a law that threatened to disenfranchise more than 600,000 registered v**ers.
The Justice Department had blocked the law two years earlier as discriminatory, and a three-judge panel in Washington agreed that it put “unforgiving burdens on the poor.” Texans who lacked driver’s licenses had to take certified copies of their birth certificates to motor vehicle offices to obtain new photo ID cards, sometimes requiring a trip of more than 100 miles.
Even though the high court’s ruling ended the department’s ability to prevent the law from taking effect, a federal district court judge in 2014 struck it down for discriminating against minorities. Last year, a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld that decision in a 3-0 opinion, written by a judge appointed by President George W. Bush.
Yet the Texas law still stands.
Seemingly untouched by numerous legal defeats, the v**er ID law serves as an example of how difficult it can be to halt potentially discriminatory v****g rules since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County vs. Holder.
“This is a perfect illustration of what we lost,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “We have seven judges who looked at this and all found a violation. Yet the law is still in effect.”
The Supreme Court has refused to intervene so far. On the eve of the 2014 e******ns, the justices by a 6-3 v**e declined to block enforcement of the photo ID rule pending the state’s appeal, as did the 5th Circuit, despite its own panel’s ruling.
Now, as the nation heads toward the first p**********l e******n since the high court struck down Section 5 of the V****g Rights Act, opponents are again asking the court to put the Texas law on hold. A decision is expected in the coming week.
Section 5 of the 1965 landmark v****g law had barred Texas and other states with checkered histories on v****g rights from changing their e******n rules without first winning approval from the Justice Department or from a federal court in Washington.
Since that provision of the act was struck down, eight of the nine states that were subject to federal “pre-clearance” have adopted or enforced laws or restrictions that altered v****g procedures in ways that have made it more difficult for poor, minority and mostly Democratic v**ers, v****g rights groups say.
“We are seeing stark evidence of a resurgence in v****g discrimination,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers Committee.
In North Carolina, the state cut back on early v****g and ended same-day registration. V**ers in Phoenix spent hours waiting in line to v**e in late March after county officials reduced the number of polling places from more than 200 to 60. Alabama adopted a new photo ID law similar to the one in Texas and then announced that, for budget reasons, it was closing dozens of motor vehicle offices in rural counties.
The Justice Department has filed suit against three such laws, one in North Carolina and two in Texas, including the photo ID law.
“While the Shelby County decision has certainly made it more difficult to ensure that new practices do not unlawfully discriminate against eligible v**ers, our commitment to protecting the rights of v**ers has not wavered and we continue to use every tool at our disposal to work to protect the v****g rights of every eligible American,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the department’s civil rights division.
The preclearance provision was often described as strong medicine for an especially virulent disease. The Constitution was amended after the Civil War to forbid racial discrimination in v****g. But that command proved ineffective in the South as long as state lawmakers could change rules and local officials controlled the v****g rolls.
Texas proved especially inventive in devising ways to prevent b****s from participating in e******ns, v****g rights advocates say. Four times during the 20th century, the Supreme Court struck down Texas laws that it found barred b****s from v****g in primary e******ns.
The V****g Rights Act was seen by many as the most effective civil rights measure in the nation’s history. And in 2006 the House and Senate, in a rare bipartisan move, extended the full law for an additional 25 years.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who had been a critic of the measure since his days as a young Reagan administration lawyer, had other ideas. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in v****g is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts said in the 5-4 decision that held the special scrutiny for the South was outdated. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg compared the majority’s logic to “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
It was the first time since the 19th century that the high court had voided a major civil rights law involving race, and v****g rights lawyers predicted trouble.
“We warned the court this was about protecting real v**ers from real discrimination,” said Ryan Haygood, formerly a v****g rights lawyer for the Legal Defense Fund of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People. “Maybe if you live a considerable distance from where the discrimination is most intense, you don’t understand it.”
Even before 2013, Texas had required registered v**ers to show some proof of their identity before casting a b****t. In 2011, the Republican-controlled Legislature decided to sharply restrict what type of proof would suffice. A Texas driver’s license, a U.S. passport, a concealed weapons permit and a U.S. military identification card qualified, but not a photo ID of a federal, state or local government employee or of a student at a state university.
After the high court decision, the Justice Department and a coalition of civil rights groups filed suit in a federal court in Texas under Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act, which also forbids measures that discriminate against minorities.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee, struck down the Texas law in October 2014 after a two-week trial. In a 147-page opinion, she described how Texas lawmakers worried about the growing minority population in the state and deliberately set out to limit v****g by Latinos and African Americans. While the state had virtually no evidence of people fraudulently posing as someone else to cast a b****t, the strict photo ID would prevent or discourage hundreds of thousands of legal v**ers from casting b****ts, she said.
But shortly after she ruled, the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans, at the behest of Texas state lawyers, lifted her order and permitted the law to take effect in time for the November e******n.
No one knows how many Texas v**ers might have been deterred, but the state reported a significant drop in turnout. In 2010, 38% of registered v**ers cast b****ts in the governor’s race. Four years later, with the new law in effect, 33.7% cast v**es for governor.
With the fall e******ns approaching, civil rights lawyers are trying again at the Supreme Court. They filed an emergency appeal in late March with Justice Clarence Thomas and asked him and the full court to put the Texas law on hold for this year’s e******n.
Texas state lawyers call the new ID requirement a “minor inconvenience” for v**ers, and they are urging the court to dismiss the appeal. They said that the new law affects only a “limited fraction of qualified Texas v**ers” and that the challengers “did not prove it will be prevent any person” from casting a b****t.
V****g rights groups see the Supreme Court as their last chance to stop the law before November. “We felt we had to go to the court one more time on this,” said Gerry Hebert, a veteran v****g rights lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center. “We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, and this is the most fundamental right we have as Americans.” david.savage@latimes.com