monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

what I pose is no more silly than unilateral ARmageddon. (I was kidding Gooey and oral were NOT).
Still not scared?

Quote:

He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances.

Russia would NEVER warn us of a potential terrorist attack, eh?

Quote:

The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9-11 is now finished, but the findings that have been released fail to mention any warnings from foreign governments. The US mainstream media also has paid little attention to warnings from foreign governments.

Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02]

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat

Security Advisor McMaster furiously DENIES Trump leaked ‘highly classified’ information to the Russians

The story that came out tonight is false,' McMaster told a pack of reporters gathered outside the West Wing.

'The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known,' McMaster added.

'Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources,' McMaster said in closely-watched remarks outside the White House, as reaction and concern rolled in from Capitol Hill.

'I was in the room — it didn’t happen,' he said, before abruptly ending his statement without taking questions.

Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.


“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.
====
Dr William Briggs said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not

In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”
====

an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950.

But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”

Have you realized yet that McMaster
s very precisely worded "denial" nevcer dealth with what people were aghast at.

The story that came out tonight is false,' McMaster told a pack of reporters gathered outside the West Wing.

'Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so.

'I was in the room — it didn’t happen,' he said, before abruptly ending his statement without taking questions.

How about Hillary Huma and Tony (among others) violating title 18?

"At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed," Mr McMaster said. "

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that Mr Trump discussed a "broad range of subjects" with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, "among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations," Mr Tillerson said.

Dina Powell, White House deputy national security adviser for strategy, who also attended the meeting, said: "This story is false. The President only discussed the common threats that both countries faced."

=====

However, the Washington Post did not report that Mr Trump disclosed sources and intelligence-gathering methods. Instead, the article explained that Mr Trump revealed classified information from which sources and methods could be inferred.