Friday, April 20, 2018

95% of plastic in oceans comes from just ten rivers 

95% of plastic in oceans comes from just ten rivers 

Shocking report reveals that 95% of plastic polluting the world's oceans comes from just TEN rivers including the Ganges and Niger

  • Scientists analysed data on plastic from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers
  • Their results showed that 10 rivers account for the majority of plastic 
  • Eight of these are in Asia, including the Yangtze and Indus rivers
  • Targeting these rivers could halve the amount of plastic waste, experts predict  
Up to 95 per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research.
The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste.
About five trillion pounds is floating in the sea, and targeting the major sources - such as the Yangtze and the Ganges - could almost halve it, scientists claim.
Scroll down for video 
Up to 95 per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research. The top 10 rivers, including the River Niger (pictured) accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste
Up to 95 per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research. The top 10 rivers, including the River Niger (pictured) accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste


Yangtze East China Sea Asia
Indus Arabian Sea Asia
Yellow River Yellow Sea Asia
Hai He Yellow Sea Asia
Nile Mediterranean Africa
Ganges Bay of Bengal Asia
Pearl River South China Sea Asia
Amur Sea of Okhotsk Asia
Niger Gulf of Guinea Africa
Mekong South China Sea Asia 
Massive amounts of plastic bits that imperil aquatic life are washing into the oceans and even the most pristine waters.
But how it all gets there from inland cities has not been fully understood.
Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste.
The team calculated halving plastic pollution in these waterways could potentially reduce the total contribution by all rivers by 45 per cent.
Dr Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist at Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany, said: 'A substantial fraction of marine plastic debris originates from land-based sources and rivers potentially act as a major transport pathway for all sizes of plastic debris.'
The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste
The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste
His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size.
They said microplastics in particular can damage the health of marine life but cleaning it all up would be impossible. However stemming the tide could help reduce the potential harm.
Dr Schmidt said to do this, researchers need a better understanding of how plastic makes its way into the oceans in the first place.
The study shows the top 10 rivers, including the River Indus (pictured) accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste
The study shows the top 10 rivers, including the River Indus (pictured) accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste


The amount of plastic rubbish in the world's oceans will outweigh fish by 2050 unless the world takes drastic action to further recycle, a report released in 2016 revealed.
Researchers warned eight million tonnes of plastics currently find their way into the ocean every year - the equivalent of one truckload every minute.
At current rates, this will worsen to four truckloads per minute in 2050 and outstrip native life to become the largest mass inhabiting the oceans.
An overwhelming 95 per cent of plastic packaging - worth £65 - £92billion - is lost to the economy after a single use, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report stated.
And available research estimates that there are more than 150 million tonnes of plastics in the ocean today.
Rivers which flow from inland areas to the seas are major transporters of plastic debris but the concentration patterns aren't well known.
The findings could help fill in this knowledge gap.
Dr Schmidt pooled data from dozens of research articles and calculated the amount in rivers was linked to the 'mismanagement of plastic waste in their watersheds.'
He said: 'The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88-95 per cent of the global load into the sea.'
The study follows a recent report that pointed the finger at China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam for spewing out most of the plastic waste that enters the seas.
The Yangtze has been estimated in previous research to dump some 727 million pounds of plastic into the sea each year. The Ganges River in India is responsible for even more - about 1.2 billion pounds.
A combination of the Xi, Dong and Zhujiang Rivers (233 million lbs per year) in China as well as four Indonesian rivers: the Brantas (85 million lbs annually), Solo (71 million pounds per year), Serayu (37 million lbs per year) and Progo (28 million lbs per year), are all large contributors.
Previous research has also suggested two-thirds of plastic comes from the 20 most contaminated rivers. But Dr Schmidt reckons this can be narrowed down even further.
He said: 'The rivers with the highest estimated plastic loads are characterised by high population - for instance the Yangtze with over half a billion people.
'These rivers are also in countries with a high rate of mismanaged plastic waste (MMPW) production per capita as a result of a not fully implemented municipal waste management including waste collection, dumping and recycling.
Previous research has also suggested two-thirds of plastic comes from the 20 most contaminated rivers. But Dr Schmidt reckons this can be narrowed down even further (stock image)
Previous research has also suggested two-thirds of plastic comes from the 20 most contaminated rivers. But Dr Schmidt reckons this can be narrowed down even further (stock image)


  • One million plastic bottles are  sold every minute
  • 480 billion plastic bottles were sold in 2016
  • 538 billion plastic bottles will be thrown away every year by 2021
  • Fewer than half of plastic bottles are recycled
  • Up to 13 million tonnes of plastic enter the sea every year 
'The data shows large rivers are particular efficient in transporting plastic debris. Large rivers like the Yangtze transport a higher fraction of the MMPW that is generated in their catchments than smaller rivers.
'These three factors lead to the estimated concentration of most of the plastic load to large rivers with a large population living in their catchment.
'Countries with high MMPW generation such as China or India could greatly reduce the plastic pollution of rivers by implementing proper waste management.
'In industrial countries, although they have a well developed waste management infrastrcuture, one way for plastic waste entering the environment is littering.'
His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles (pictured) measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size
His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles (pictured) measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size
Pollution costs more than £6 billion ($7.9 billion) in damage to marine ecosystems and kills an estimated one million sea birds, 100,000 sea mammals and untold numbers of fish.
Dr Schmidt said: 'Pollution of the marine environment with plastic debris is widely recognised and is of increasing ecological concern because of the chemical persistence of plastics and their mechanical fragmentation to so-called microplastics which can be ingested by even small organisms such as zooplankton.
'Beyond the long recognised occurrence of plastic debris in the marine environment plastic debris has been more recently detected in freshwater environments and can be found even in pristine, remote locations.'


So much plastic is dumped into the sea each year that it would fill five carrier bags for every foot of coastline on the planet, scientists have warned. 
More than half of the plastic waste that flows into the oceans comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka. 
The only industrialized western country on the list of top 20 plastic polluters is the United States at No. 20. 
The U.S. and Europe are not mismanaging their collected waste, so the plastic trash coming from those countries is due to litter, researchers said.
While China is responsible for 2.4 million tons of plastic that makes its way into the ocean, nearly 28 percent of the world total, the United States contributes just 77,000 tons, which is less than one percent, according to the study published in the journal Science.He added: 'The high fraction of a few river catchments contributing the vast majority of the total load implies that potential mitigation measures would be highly efficient when applied in the high-load rivers.
'Reducing plastic loads by 50 per cent in the 10 top-ranked rivers would reduce the total river-based load to the sea by 45 per cent.
'Our analysis reveals that plastic loads of large rivers disproportionately increase in relationship to the increase of plastic debris available for transport.'
Video playing bottom right...

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018 | Principia Scientific International

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018

Written by John O'Sullivan

Fresh analysis of government scientific records reveals the idea of ‘long-settled’ science in the greenhouse gas theory is a myth. The claim human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) act as a control knob on climate only appeared in consensus science since the 1980’s. Prior to that time, official records show the theory as “abandoned.”
Famously, on June 24, 1988 the whole world first heard about the dreaded “greenhouse effect” (GHE) from NASA’s  new champion of the theory, James Hansen. Hansen had breathed life into an old and “abandoned” theory drawing from new space research into Venus and Mars. Thanks to Hansen’s role, climate fear prevailed for a generation.
Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory. Other new papers readily dismiss the CO2 climate hypothesis. Below we present the stark evidence and encourage readers to engage in their own research.
Consensus as Science?
Of course, we should begin by stating real scientists avoid reliance on consensus opinion to determine the validity or otherwise of any theory. But so often, non-scientists in the general public and media (and certain corrupt national science institutes) cite consensus claims to quell discussion and debate.
In that regard, we show that for the greater part of the 20th century consensus science, itself, rejected the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
The so-called greenhouse gas theory (GHE) was first famously debunked by Professor  H. W.Woods in 1909. Establishment scientists usually never decry the Woods debunk. Instead, they gloss over it and the long hiatus that followed (1909-1980).
Concocting a Strong Narrative
Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics is pre-eminent among establishment science historians in splashing gloss.  Weart’s book, ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ is compulsory reading for modern students in this field.
Weart plugged Hansen’s comparison of Mars and Venus with Earth, asserting life as being very fragile and vulnerable to any climate shifts. Weart writes:
“In the 1960s and 1970s, observations of Mars and Venus showed that planets that seemed much like the Earth could have frightfully different atmospheres. The greenhouse effect had made Venus a furnace, while lack of atmosphere had locked Mars in a deep freeze. This was visible evidence that climate can be delicately balanced, so that a planet’s atmosphere could flip from a livable state to a deadly one.” (id.)
Like James Hansen’s ‘fixing’ of history, Weart is masterful at making evidence fit the narrative.
Alarmist drumbeater, Andrew C. Revkin, in The New York Times Book Review heaped fulsome praise proclaiming that Weart’s version of science history,
“dissects the interwoven threads of research and reveals the political and societal subtexts that colored scientists’ views and the public reception their work received.”
Revkin’s words are subtly revealing of the importance of appearance in science and public perception. Glowing praise for Weart came, too, from Fred Pearce, of the UK’s The Independent:
“It is almost two centuries since the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier discovered that the Earth was far warmer than it had any right to be, given its distance from the Sun… Spencer Weart’s book about how Fourier’s initially inconsequential discovery finally triggered urgent debate about the future habitability of the Earth is lucid, painstaking and commendably brief, packing everything into 200 pages.”
We could be forgiven for thinking we’ve had two centuries, no less, of CO2 ‘settled science’, couldn’t we?
Follow the Money
Sadly, too few have scratched beneath the surface of Spencer Weart’s compelling (biased) narrative. If they had they would have found some very disturbing pronouncements of consensus science wonderfulness to jar such faith.
What Weart and other establishment lackeys won’t tell you is that the American Meteorological Society – as well as Britain’s top climate scientist, CEP Brooks (1951) no less – published the most damning assessments discrediting Weart’s Big Greenhouse Gas Fiction.
Weart, and so many profiting from the scam, won’t admit that it doesn’t pay to come clean and jump off the billion dollar global warming gravy train. Professor Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan, sums it up succinctly:
 “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other – every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
Weart and co. would rather you not know that there are more than 65 (SIXTY-FIVE!) known iterations jockeying for position as THE GHE theory. Many are self-contradictory and unphysical. By contrast, we don’t have 65 variations of the laws of gravity. Plus, there are no less than  53 bogus authority statements online declaring that Earth’s atmosphere DOES act ‘like a greenhouse.’
The Hansen ‘Cooling is Warming’ Flip-flop
Weart also fails to tell readers that in 1967 Hansen claimed (when he was a fringe theorist) that if there was a GHE it was likely induced by dust (aerosol particulates).  [1]
Hansen had been pitching his “Dust Insulation Model” (DIM) to anyone and everyone after obtaining his PhD from the University of Iowa and starting work at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Then in the 1970′s disaster science became the rage, inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, a leading advocate of Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions. Hansen, as a disciple of Velikovsky, was crying about an impending ice age on Earth while at the same time speculating that dust aerosols in the atmosphere of Venus caused a “runaway greenhouse gas effect” on the hot planet. Nowhere, back then, was Hansen claiming CO2 drove climate. Does the term “opportunist” spring to mind?
Not until television science celebrity and fellow catastrophist, Carl Sagan, won fame with his claims about a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus – all due to carbon dioxide – that Hansen got on the new bandwagon. Meanwhile, a contemporary of Sagan, American physicist Richard Feynmen, discredited the GHE. Today, independent scientists, using the latest data from space probes, have a better idea of what’s happening on Venus. Moreover, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggests life is not fragile, but enduring and likely common throughout the universe on many planets like ours.
This certainly conflicts with the Weart narrative. But then, why would Weart – a loyal alarmist propagandist – want to expose how bad Hansen’s science really is? If Weart were honest, he would have come clean on Hansen’s howler made in a key climate paper published in a 1981 edition of ‘Science‘.  [2]
Hansen’s Huge CO2 ‘Window’ Howler
In it Hansen claims carbon dioxide absorbs in an atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers – which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. But the scientific reality is that carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmospheric window centered on 14.77 microns with a range from about 13 to 17 microns – not from 7 to 14 micrometers. So how did Weart and thousands of “experts” over decades never spot that corker?
None of these crucial failings was systematically challenged until 2010 and the full-volume ground-breaking book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the  Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ A recent bombshell study validated the book’s science.
The clues for junk science are staring us in the face, especially now so many experts, outside of climate ‘science’, aver to the facts of empirical evidence that CO2 has only even been proven to cool, never warm, anything.  Joseph E Postma illustrated well how respected textbooks on thermodynamics show’ energy‘ is generally not ‘heat‘, which is where the GHE theory is confused and any forcing role from CO2 cannot work. [3]
Charlatans Conflate Correlation & Causation
But thanks to mainstream media hype and despite the flaws in the science, the GHE gained traction from 1980, as global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) went ever upwards. Non-scientists often mistake correlation for causation (charlatans depend on it!).  Yet, we now look back and see that average global temperatures over the past 100 years have barely moved one degree – despite the brief uptick in the late 20th Century.
With no catastrophe imminent and fears of a new ice age gripping ever more scientists, we are right on the cusp of the biggest science paradigm shift since Einstein. Academics don’t want to admit to the truth that levels of CO2 – whether higher or lower – can be shown to have no measured climate impact. The truth, it seems, shifts full circle back to what the AMS declared in 1951, as the extract below reveals. [4]
The author of the above extract is CEP Brooks. He and the publisher, the American Meteorological Society, unequivocally advise that the old CO2 climate theory of Arrhenius, Fourier, et al:
was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.”
Brooks (+AMS) then addresses the rise in atmospheric CO2 due to human industrial activity:
In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callender [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature.”
Continuing, Brooks (1951) makes the same inescapable argument made by skeptics today:
But during the past 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the internvention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”
Thus, the greenhouse gas theory was well and truly dead and buried in 1951 – according to settled consensus science (if you are a believer in it).
No ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ Spoken in Charney (1979)
For the next revealing insight we must shift 28 years further ahead to ‘Charney’ (1979). But before we do, let us first heed some words of warning from a man with the keenest insight of Big Government machinations.
As Warren E. Leary writes, no less than President Dwight D Eisenhower urged us to be on our guard:
“During the 1961 address, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he included a few sentences about risks posed by a scientific-technological elite. He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” [5]
Intellectual curiosity certainly has gone into short supply in contemporary government science. From the 1940’s to early 1970’s, the temperature records had showed a clear cooling trend. Till the mid 1970’s the big story among scientists was global cooling – not warming. We have to get well into the 1980’s, when there was evidence of an uptick in global temperatures, to see wide evidence that the long-abandoned CO2-driven greenhouse gas hypothesis was rising again – like phoenix from the ashes.
Indeed, we can pinpoint the change by examining the extremely detailed  13,000-word climate report ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate, A Scientific Assessment’ (1979). Widely referred to just as ‘Charney’. This makes zero mention of the greenhouse gas theory. Not. Anywhere. Among. Thirteen. Thousand. Words. So how could the greenhouse gas theory be “settled science” if not mentioned by name ANYWHERE in such a key US federal climate report?
Nonetheless, ‘Charney’ did concede that CO2 might actually cause cooling, something contemporary alarmists would rather you didn’t know!
Prominent skeptic, Professor Richard Lindzen,  was one of the original ‘Charney‘ science contributors (see image above – along with James Hansen!) and  has “walked back” from the GHE. Despite Hansen’s “contribution”  his theory was shut out. Canadian space scientist, Joseph E Postma summarizes why bias, group think and incompetence helped sustain the discredited greenhouse gas theory for so long when proper examination shows it is literally ‘flat earth physics.’
NASA Boss: Hansen “Embarrassed” Us
But time is not the friend of climate fraudsters. And Hansen’s beloved greenhouse gas theory is consistently and monotonously being refuted in peer-reviewed journals rendering him – and other alarmists – disgraced. NASA’s Mass/Gravity Equations contradict the GHE and retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theonm James Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, has declared on government record that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” and “was never muzzled.” [6]
The failure, after 30 years of prophesy, for a climate catastrophe to unfold, has left James Hansen a somewhat chastened man. In a recent paper Hansen shows he has now flip-flopped again on the climate forcing properties of aerosols. Returning to his old DIM science idea Hansen now says aerosols are part of the control knob for a planet’s energy content. But contrary to what he claimed before, he now says they cause cooling, not warming.
In 2018 the null hypothesis awaits the greenhouse gas theory. In 1951, the AMS and Britain’s best climate scientist and head of the UK Meteorological Office, CEP Brooks said it all (id.)

[1] Hansen, J.E., and S. Matsushima “The atmosphere and surface temperature of Venus: A dust insulation model”Astrophys. J. 150: 1139–1157 (1967) Bibcode1967ApJ…150.1139HDoi:10.1086/149410.
[2] [Hansen J., Johnson D., Lacis A., Lebedeff S., Lee P., Rind D., Russell D., SCIENCE 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511, Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.].
[3] Refers to Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) stating that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”  And so note once again that energy is generally not heat. GHE believers conflate both.
[4]  CEP Brooks, American Meteorological Society (1951) in its Compendium of Meteorology (Brooks, C.E.P.  “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” pp. 1004-18 (at 1016)).

Comey’s Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing Of Trump Was A Setup

Comey’s Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing Of Trump Was A Setup

Newly released memos from former FBI director James Comey indicate that an early 2017 briefing for Trump on the contents of an unverified dossier were part of a setup to enable media to report on the the most salacious details of the dossier.
Mollie Hemingway
Newly released memos written by former FBI director James Comey indicate that an early 2017 briefing for then-President-elect Donald Trump about the contents of an infamous dossier was held so it could be leaked to media outlets eager to report on the dossier’s allegations. In multiple memos, Comey specifically mentioned that CNN had the dossier and wanted a “news hook” that would enable the network to report on its most salacious allegations even though they had not been verified.
“I said the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013,” Comey wrote of his conversation with Trump in a classified memo that was released in redacted form late Thursday. “I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands.”
No media organizations had reported the allegations at the time Comey briefed Trump.
“I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Comey added in his memo about the briefing with Trump on January 6, 2017.
In another classified memo written on January 28, 2017, Comey wrote that in a separate meeting Trump mentioned the allegation about the alleged tape of prostitutes at a hotel and called it “fake news.”
“I explained again why I had thought it important that he know about it,” Comey wrote. “I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.”
Of the many thousands of articles promoting a still-unproven theory of treasonous collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, few were as significant as CNN’s January 10 story “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” Extremely well-placed sources told CNN that the Obama administration’s top intelligence appointees had briefed Obama, Biden, and Trump all about a dossier they took incredibly seriously and considered credible. And it sounded really bad, as the headline indicated.
“Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump,” CNN declared. BuzzFeed published the actual dossier within minutes of CNN’s story going live, showing the world that the dossier was riddled with salacious gossip that lacked even a possibility of corroboration.
Keep in mind that nothing we now know about the dossier had been reported at the time. It wasn’t yet reported that it was used by the FBI to provide a substantial basis to wiretap at least one Trump affiliate despite the fact it was unverified. It wasn’t yet reported that the product was bought and paid for as a Hillary Clinton campaign operation, or that it was secretly funded by the DNC using a law firm as a pass-through to hide its provenance in federal campaign filings. It wasn’t yet reported that its author’s working relationship with the FBI was terminated because he had lied to the agency about how he wouldn’t talk to the media.
After nearly a year of wrangling, the seven memos written by Comey were finally handed over on Thursday to Congress, which oversees the operation and funding of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The memos purport to show Comey’s version of his interactions with the president before Comey was fired last May. According to Daniel Richman, the original recipient of Comey’s leaks who now claims to be his personal attorney, Comey gave him four memos. Four of the seven memos are classified, meaning that at least one of the memos he leaked was classified. By his own account, Comey orchestrated these leaks to the media in order to launch an aggressive special counsel to avenge his firing by Trump in May 2017. The memos given to Congress on Thursday were quickly leaked to the media.
The first memo was sent on January 7, 2017, to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, and James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff. McCabe has since been fired from the FBI and referred to DOJ for criminal prosecution for repeatedly lying under oath about leaking. Baker was reassigned. And Rybicki was replaced in January of 2018.
There are two things in the memo that are worth highlighting as relate to that blockbuster CNN story from January 10, 2017.
First, Comey claims that briefing the president-elect was the brainchild of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to the [president-elect] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote. More on that in a bit.
“I then executed the session exactly as I had planned,” Comey noted before going into details of what he claimed he told the president-elect. He wrote that he told him about the now-infamous prostitute pee-pee videotape claims contained in the dossier. Then he wrote:
“I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuses to write that the FBI has the material or [REDACTED] and that we were keeping it very close-hold. He said he couldn’t believe they hadn’t gone with it. I said it was inflammatory stuff that they would get killed for reporting straight up from the source reports.
Such a close-hold that someone at a very high level in the Obama administration gave the information to CNN almost immediately. CNN broke the news of the dossier and Comey’s briefing of the president just four days later.
With Comey claiming that Clapper wanted him to brief POTUS, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence final report on Russia has something of interest. The report, which was downplayed and panned by CNN, included a finding of interest related to discussions of the dossier with the media:
Finding #44: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.”
So Comey, at Clapper’s expressed behest, told Trump that CNN was “looking for a news hook” to publish dossier allegations. He said this in the briefing of Trump that almost immediately leaked to CNN, which provided them the very news hook they sought and needed.
This briefing, and the leaking of it, legitimized the dossier, which touched off the Russia hysteria. That hysteria led to a full-fledged media freakout. During the freakout, Comey deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in private — that the President of the United States was not under investigation. He even noted in his memos that he told the president at least three times that he was not under investigation. Comey’s refusal to admit publicly what he kept telling people privately led to his firing.
That led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Ryan Saavedra ���� on Twitter: "#BREAKING: 11 members of Congress have asked AG Jeff Sessions, FBI Director Chris Wray, and US attorney John Huber to conduct a criminal investigation of the following individuals: -James Comey -Hillary Clinton -Loretta Lynch -Andrew McCabe -Peter Strzok -Lisa Page…"

Ryan Saavedra ���� on Twitter: "#BREAKING: 11 members of Congress have asked AG Jeff Sessions, FBI Director Chris Wray, and US attorney John Huber to conduct a criminal investigation of the following individuals: -James Comey -Hillary Clinton -Loretta Lynch -Andrew McCabe -Peter Strzok -Lisa Page…"

Constitutional Rights

Constitutional Rights

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

Monday, April 16, 2018

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russian authorities warned the FBI in 2011 about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two Chechen brothers accused of carrying out last year’s Boston Marathon bombings, but U.S. authorities missed chances to detain him, NBC News reported on Tuesday.
The sign for Al-Barzakh Islamic Cemetery is seen in Doswell, Virginia, May 10, 2013. Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev has been buried in the Muslim cemetery in Virginia, after authorities spent a week searching for a final resting place for the ethnic Chechen's remains.REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Citing a congressional report it said could be released by the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee as soon as Thursday, NBC News said the Russian intelligence agency FSB cabled the FBI about its concerns in March 2011, warning that Tsarnaev was known to have associated with militant Islamists.
The network said the FBI opened an investigation of Tsarnaev that month conducted by a joint task force of federal, state and local authorities. Tsarnaev was interviewed in person, and a memo was sent to the Customs and Border Protection database called TECS that would trigger an alert whenever he left or re-entered the United States.
But the investigation was closed in June 2011 after finding Tsarnaev had no links to terrorism, NBC quoted the report as saying.
In September 2011, the FSB sent a cable to the CIA, restating the warnings of the first memo. NBC News quoted sources close to the congressional investigation as saying a second note about Tsarnaev was entered into the TECS system the next month, but spelled his name “Tsarnayev.”
The note directed that if Tsarnaev were encountered leaving or re-entering the United States, his detention was “mandatory.”
In January 2012, Tsarnaev went to JFK airport in New York to board a flight to Moscow, triggering an alert. But he was not considered high priority among the 100 other names on a “Hot List” of people traveling through JFK that day, NBC News said, citing sources familiar with the report.
After spending six months in the Russian region of Dagestan, an experience U.S. investigators suspect played an important role in his radicalization, Tsarnaev flew back to JFK airport on July 17, 2012, but he was not detained or questioned because of the misspelling of his name, NBC News said.
U.S. officials have said a misspelling of Tsarnaev’s name on flight records may have contributed to some law enforcement agencies not being alerted to his movements.
Several days after the April 15, 2013, Boston Marathon bombings that killed three people and wounded more than 260, Tsarnaev died after a gunfight with police while he and brother Dzhokhar, now 20, were trying to flee the city.
The younger Tsarnaev was wounded and later arrested and is awaiting trial in November on charges that could result in the death penalty if he is convicted.
NBC News quoted a congressional staffer as saying: “The report is not blaming the FBI,” but “looking at processes and filling holes.”

Infographic: How the U.S. Tax System Works

Infographic: How the U.S. Tax System Works

One issue that most lawmakers and voters agree on is that our tax system needs reform. It is confusing, complex, and favors some individuals and economic activities over others. Exactly how to revise the tax system, however, can be a hotly contested issue — which is further complicated by the fact that there are common misconceptions about how the current system works.
Before we can begin to assess the value of specific proposals, it helps to get the big picture on how the system works. Check out the infographic below for an overview of the system, and then test how much you have learned with our tax quiz.

Infographic: How the U.S. Tax System Works
Last updated 7/24/17

Want to share this image on your site? Copy and paste the embed code below:

Feel free to share this infographic on Twitter.
Tweet: Individual income #taxes account for almost half of the federal government's revenue via @pgpfoundation #TaxReform

Tweet: Tax myth: Low-income earners don't pay any federal #taxes via @pgpfoundation #TaxReform

Tweet: Total tax burdens are lower in the U.S. than among other advanced nations via @pgpfoundation #TaxReform

Tweet: #TaxBreaks cost more than what the government spends on #SocialSecurity, defense, or #Medicare via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: What is the #TaxReform opportunity? via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: What is the #TaxReform opportunity? via @pgpfoundation

The Coriolis Effect: A (Fairly) Simple Explanation

The Coriolis Effect: A (Fairly) Simple Explanation

The Coriolis Effect

copyright 1996 by Dave Van Domelen

NOTE: This page was copied from
Thanks to Dave Van Domelen!

It's in just about every classical dynamics or mathematical physics text:
-2m (angular velocity) x (velocity in rotating frame)
The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand.

A. The Basic Premises

The following premises are necessary to convey the explanation:
  1. Newton's First Law - specifically, objects in motion tend to stay in motion.
  2. Spherical Geometry of the Earth -
    • X degrees of longitude gives you more or less miles of distance at different latitudes,
    • objects are effectively confined to the surface by gravity (thickness of atmosphere is a tiny percentage of the Earth's radius).
  3. Centripetal Acceleration - If the velocity is too high the object will try to increase its radius, if the velocity is too low the object will try to decrease its radius (fall). This one can be a little harder to get across to students, but fortunately it's not necessary for all cases.
Premise 2 is probably the easiest to get students to accept, since you can draw on a globe to demonstrate how an inch is 15 degrees here and 30 degrees there. And a simple comparison of the thickness of the troposphere to the size of the Earth completes it. 1 and 3 require at least a little science background or a few demonstrations to convince students of.

B. I Feel The Earth Move Under My Feet: North/South Motion

Without premise 3, you can still pretty convincingly describe the Coriolis Effect on objects moving due north or due south. The Earth rotates to the east at an effectively constant angular velocity, but different latitudes have different linear speeds. A point at the equator has to go farther in a day than a point in Ohio, so it must go faster.
However, when an object starts to move north or south and is not firmly connected to the ground (air, artillery fire, etc) then it maintains its initial eastward speed as it moves. An object leaving the equator will retain the eastward speed of other objects at the equator, but if it travels far enough it will no longer be going east at the same speed the ground beneath it is.

The result is that an object travelling away from the equator will be heading east faster than the ground and will seem to be forced east by some mysterious force. Objects travelling towards the equator will be going more slowly than the ground beneath them and will seem to be forced west. In reality there is no actual force involved, the ground is simply moving at a different speed than the object is "used to".
Consider the diagram to the right. The orange arrow represents some object sent north from the equator. By the time it reaches the labeled northern latitude, it's gone farther east than a point on the ground would have, since it kept its eastward speed from where it started. Similarly, the yellow arrow started away from the equator at a slower eastward speed, and doesn't go as far east as the ground at the equator...seeming to deflect west from the point of view of the ground.

C. You Spin Me Right Round Baby: East/West Motion

The case of Coriolis deflection on objects moving east and west is a little trickier since it depends on a slightly tougher concept and also on the fact that the object is confined to the surface of the sphere. In the absence of any constraint (such as gravity or the ground) the effect is much less noticeable. Again begin with an object at a particular latitude where the Earth moves east at a certain speed. Now move it east or west so that it has a speed different from that of the Earth below.
(Quick pause to explain centripetal acceleration in a nutshell.)
(Centripetal acceleration is defined as the acceleration needed to keep an object moving in a circle at a particular radius. In the case of objects on Earth, the radius is a line perpendicular to the axis of Earth's rotation, and the acceleration is provided by the component of gravity in that direction.)
(The basic effect of all of this, however, is that if you go faster than "allowed" by your centripetal acceleration you start to fly outward and if you go slower you drop inward. A good demonstration of this is to spin a ball attached to an elastic cord: spin faster and it goes outward, spin slower and it comes in.)

As a result, objects moving east want to fly outward into space and objects moving west want to drop towards the axis of the Earth. However, gravity keeps most objects from flying away and the ground stops things from falling straight to the axis. Most objects will be confined to a few mile thick layer at the surface, and while they can rise and fall some, the best way to change their radius is to deflect north or south.
Eastward-bound objects will try to go straight out, but as shown in the diagram to the left, they will head for the equator as the best way to increase their radius out from the axis. Westward-bound objects will "skid" off the ground and head away from the equator to where the radius is smaller. In cases where the motion isn't enough to make the object run into the upper or lower limits, simply moving away from the axis will make the position above ground move farther south, and moving towards the axis will take an object farther north.

D. Putting It Together: Low Pressure Systems

The general result of any one of these deflections is that something in the Northern Hemisphere moving along in one direction will be deflected to its own right with respect to an observer on the ground. In the case of a low pressure system where everything is moving towards the low, it creates a spinning vortex, as seen on the right.
Because it largely depends on how large the difference is between an object's velocity is and the ground's velocity, the effect is really only significant at high speeds (either type) or long distances (north/south especially). The angular velocity of Earth is 360 degrees per day, or .2 microradians per second, quite small. Even at fairly high wind speeds found in typhoons (40 meters per second) the Coriolis Effect generates a deflection of only about ten microns per second squared. Over an hour, this is a total deflection of about 100 meters...over a day a deflection of almost 40 kilometers. It adds up, but it takes time.

E. Water Going The Wrong Way Down The Sink

In a kitchen sink, of course, speeds and time scales are much smaller. Water rushing down a drain goes less than a meter per second in most sinks, leading to deflections of only a micron per second squared or less. If there's any pre-existing spin to a sink or tub full of water, it has to be very small in order for the Coriolis Deflection to reverse it. How slow is slow enough? Well, a quick order of magnitude calculation can be used here. Figure that after the first second of draining a sink has gotten set in whichever way it's going to spiral down the only gets stronger after it starts moving (since the velocity towards the drain picks up). Figure an average particle is at a radius of ten centimeters from the drain, so a micron per second corresponds to about 2 microradians per second angular velocity that can be changed before things get out of hand. Or about 100000 seconds per rotation per day, roughly. Give or take an order of magnitude and one full rotation per hour is all the Coriolis Effect can reverse. Even take two orders of magnitude and you still can have water spinning at once every few minutes and still be spinning the "wrong" direction enough to ignore the Coriolis Effect and go down the sink its own way. This is certainly "not visibly moving."
Of course, many sinks will exhibit no visible spin at all if they are small enough that no relic spin can work up to a good whirl and will only spiral if the water is let out while still rotating very visibly.
As to whether there's a conspiracy among sink manufacturers to sell only clockwise-encouraging faucets south of the Equator and counterclockwise faucets north of it is a topic for another day. The reader is encouraged to search the journal Science where I am told a pair of serious studies are presented (unfortunately, I don't know which issues the articles are in, or even which information is still secondhand). The results were that after you carefully control all the variables (use a large wooden tub, control the temperature throughout the tub, have the drain be a tube extending up into the tub to avoid friction effects with the tub walls, start the water off spinning the "wrong" way, etc) and wait 18 hours for the water to settle down, water does indeed spiral down the sink opposite directions in the two hemispheres. But this effect is so subtle that it wouldn't ever be seen in your bathroom sink.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Map shows where President Barack Obama dropped his 20,000 bombs

Map shows where President Barack Obama dropped his 20,000 bombs

Map shows where President Barack Obama dropped his 20,000 bombs

Outgoing US leader carries out 3,000 more strikes in 2016 than year before
The Independent US
Incoming US President Donald Trump has said he will wage war on Isis, vowing to "bomb the s*** out of 'em".
And as the world gears up for a seemingly more violent four years, it is worth reflecting on President Obama's tenure
According to newly released figures, President Obama had already upped the number of bombs on foreign countries.
US forces dropped over 3,000 more bombs in 2016 than 2015, taking the grand total of strikes for the year to at least 26,171.
This map by Statista shows you where they were:
Vast majority of strikes carried out in Iraq and Syria
The figures are likely to be an underestimate, since the only reliable data only comes from a handful of countries, and multiple bombs can be classed as a single “strike” under the Pentagon's definition.
But of the confirmed bombings, the vast majority (24,287) took place in Iraq and Syria, according to analysis of official data by Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
His research concluded that the US dropped 79 per cent of all 30,743 coalition bombs in 2016.
Play Video
The most significant moments of Obama's presidency
While President Obama reduced the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, air-strikes proliferated under his leadership.
He expanded the use of unmanned air-strikes outside the confines of war-zones in Afghanistan and Iraq to countries including Pakistan and Yemen.

In the wake of Mr Trump's win, the value of arms companies soared. He has promised extravagant military parades through America's cities and, like many Republicans, vowed to build up the US military.
Yet Democrat Mr Obama leaves the White House having authorised ten times more drone strikes than George W Bush and having been at war for longer than any President in US history.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Obama Holdover Accused of Corruption Approved Trump Lawyer Raid

BREAKING: Obama Holdover Accused of Corruption Approved Trump Lawyer Raid

The inmates are running the asylum and locking up the guards.
When the media first began to spin the raid on the president's lawyer, they claimed that it had been approved by a Trump appointee. Of course it hadn't. It came from Rosenstein on one end. And Trump's appointee had recused himself. That left his deputy, an Obama holdover.
Robert Khuzami. And there are reports that he allegedly made the decision.
Khuzami was in charge of SEC enforcement under Obama. He did speak at the RNC convention in '04 in support of the Patriot Act and donated to McCain in '08. But as we've seen with Mueller, that kind of thing is old news. The much more significant factor is his SEC gig.
And he has quite the stunning history.
Robert Khuzami made the big bucks as Deutsche Bank’s general counsel for the Americas during the subprime securitization orgy, which Deutsche’s American arm helped unleash with toxic instruments that would crush the economy and millions of homeowners and workers.
Then in 2008 a promising young candidate was elected to bring hope and change to the land amidst a financial crisis that threatened a second Great Depression...
 Khuzami became the Obama SEC’s chief of enforcement.
If you really wanted truth and justice and all that from your SEC, you probably wouldn’t go for someone who “worked with lawyers (at Deutsche Bank) who advised on the CDOs issued by the German bank and how details about them should be disclosed to investors,” as The Wall Street Journal noted three years ago.
Hope and change. And it just got worse from there.
On September 27, 2011, the SEC Inspector General released a report revealing that this anonymous attorney at the SEC had sent a letter to the Inspector General, blowing the whistle on the former SEC Director of Enforcement, Robert Khuzami. The whistleblower was complaining about Khuzami’s handling of charges that Citigroup executives had intentionally misled public investors about its exposure to subprime mortgages, understating the amount by $37 billion in the fall of 2007. According to the Inspector General’s report, the whistleblower alleged that:
 “…just before the staff’s recommendation was presented to the Commission, Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami had a ‘secret conversation’ with his ‘good friend’ and former colleague, a prominent defense counsel representing Citigroup, during which Khuzami agreed to drop the contested fraud charges against the second individual. The complaint further alleged that the Enforcement staff were ‘forced to drop the fraud charges that were part of the settlement with the other individual,’ and that both individuals were also represented by Khuzami’s friends and former colleagues, creating the appearance that Khuzami’s decision was ‘made as a special favor to them and perhaps to protect a Wall Street firm for political reasons.’ ”
And worse and worse.
From now on, Khuzami said, when corporate lawyers like the ones he was addressing want to know if their Wall Street clients are going to be charged by the Justice Department before deciding whether to come forward, all they have to do is ask the SEC.
"We are going to try to get those individuals answers," Khuzami announced, as to "whether or not there is criminal interest in the case — so that defense counsel can have as much information as possible in deciding whether or not to choose to sign up their client."
Aguirre, listening in the crowd, couldn't believe Khuzami's brazenness. The SEC's enforcement director was saying, in essence, that firms like Goldman Sachs and AIG and Lehman Brothers will henceforth be able to get the SEC to act as a middleman between them and the Justice Department, negotiating fines as a way out of jail time. Khuzami was basically outlining a four-step system for banks and their executives to buy their way out of prison. "First, the SEC and Wall Street player make an agreement on a fine that the player will pay to the SEC," Aguirre says. "Then the Justice Department commits itself to pass, so that the player knows he's 'safe.' Third, the player pays the SEC — and fourth, the player gets a pass from the Justice Department."
Earlier this month, when Sen. Chuck Grassley found out about Khuzami's comments, he sent the SEC a letter noting that the agency's own enforcement manual not only prohibits such "answer getting," it even bars the SEC from giving defendants the Justice Department's phone number.
And worse and worse and worse.
Khuzami’s letter to Grassley is the latest twist in an ongoing saga that first began in July 2010 after Darcy Flynn, an agency lawyer, complained that important early-stage investigative records were being improperly discarded.
Flynn took his concerns to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which last month issued a statement declaring that the SEC had indeed destroyed the records without the proper authority. NARA noted, however, that the SEC had stopped destroying the records and was working with NARA on a new records retention policy.
Khuzami’s letter is a response to Grassley, who last month demanded answers from the SEC after learning of Flynn’s allegations about the MUI document destruction. Grassley had said that Flynn told him the records of major high-profile cases including Bernard Madoff, Goldman Sachs, trading in AIG credit-default swaps, alleged frauds at Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and insider-trading probes at Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers and the hedge fund SAC Capital.
More recently, a letter to the SEC from Flynn’s attorney, Gary Aguirre, also raised concerns documents from more formal investigations have also been discarded. The SEC has since ceased destroying all investigative records until further notice.
In Khuzami’s letter to Grassley, he downplayed the importance of some of the kinds of documents that may have been discarded.
After all this, why was an Obama holdover with such a track record allowed the No. 2 spot? Because once again there's no organized big picture plan. The other side keeps embedding its people. And then pulls off coups like this.
Year One should have seen a crackdown on the corruption of the Obama era. It's still not too late.
The bottom line is that the Trump administration will either aggressively push back by declassifying, exposing and prosecuting misconduct from the Obama years. Or it will be targeted by increasingly aggressive measures orchestrated by the very people it should have been going after.