monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I really don't know what else to say, it is a terrible time. I am hoping it is not as awful as it seems.

My impeachment by date is March 14 or something.

I think we're on track.

Just keep on truckin with the totally unsubstantiated slander there, eh, Glitter? It's your established M.O, so don't quit now, eh? Too bad you can't come up with anything even slightly credible to claim though, ya know? It kinda undermines the effectiveness of your braying libel and your devious habits.

edgarblythe wrote:

President Trump cannot pick the person to continue this critical investigation.

What "critical investigation" would that be, I wonder? Comey told Trump three times that he was NOT under investigation. If his motive was to quash any investigation, he certainly would never fire Comey, eh?

James Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe, will take over the law enforcement agency.

McCabe's wife is a Democrat who ran for the state senate in 2015 in Virginia, before he was promoted to the FBI's No. 2 position.

Terry McAullife, the Virginia governor and a close friend of both the Clintons, directed $675,000 Jill McCabe's way for her campaign.

The Virginia governor's political action committee, Common Good VA, spent $467,000 on her losing campaign. The state Democratic Party gave her nearly $208,000.

A month before McAullife's PAC made its first donation to McCabe, Hillary Clinton headlined a fundraiser for the group.

As deputy director of the FBI, it was McCabe who oversaw the investigation into Clinton's secret server, as well as the bureau's investigations into alleged terrorists and spies.

He is under review by an inspector general for his involvement in the Clinton case, in light of his wife's ties to the former presidential candidate.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, also asked the FBI in a March letter about McCabe's role in the Russian probe and whether it 'raises the appearance a conflict of interest in light of his wife's ties with Clinton's associates.'

The Republican lawmaker asked Comey if McCabe would be recusing himself from that investigation, suggesting in the letter that McCabe faces a possible conflict of interest.

And the fact is in the last 137 years the temperature has risen 1.5 degrees...

Why do you chose to believe some odd blog out there? Your mommy should have told you not to believe everything they say on the Internet.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

A blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

The new report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

The whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009....Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.

A few weeks ago, on an obscure climate-change blog, a retired government scientist named John Bates blasted his former boss on an esoteric point having to do with archiving temperature data.

It was little more than lingering workplace bad blood, said Dr. Bates’s former co-workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Bates had felt he deserved his boss’s job at NOAA, they said, not the demotion he received.

“He’s retaliating. It’s like grade school,” said Glenn Rutledge, a former physical scientist at NOAA who worked with Dr. Bates.

But in what seems like a remarkable example of office politics gone horribly wrong, within days the accusations were amplified and sensationalized — in the pages of the British tabloid The Mail on Sunday — inciting a global furor among climate-change deniers.

The Mail claimed that Dr. Bates had revealed fraud in important research by NOAA that supports the widely held belief that climate change is real. “How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data,” the article’s headline said.

The scientific community swiftly shot down the accusations, and affirmed the accuracy of the research. And Dr. Bates himself later stated in an interview with a business news site that he had not meant to suggest that his former boss had played fast and loose with temperature data. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” Dr. Bates said.