Michigan Crowd Chants ‘Nobel!’ When Trump Brings Up North Korea

Michigan Crowd Chants ‘Nobel!’ When Trump Brings Up North Korea, by Tyler O’Neil.

On Saturday night, President Donald Trump opted to speak at a campaign-style rally in Michigan instead of addressing the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. The crowd proved so enthusiastic, they would have given the president the Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaking of China’s President Xi Jinping, the president said, “He’s been a great help on the border with North Korea and a lot of good things are happening there.”

Moments later, one loud voice started chanting, “Nobel! Nobel!” Flattered, President Trump chuckled with understanding, saying “Nobel” and walking away from the podium.

The crowd took up the chant, “Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!” for ten seconds as the leader of the free world stood speechless before the podium. He looked like he was on top of the world.

“That’s very nice, thank you. That’s very nice,” the president said, truly meaning his words. “Nobel,” he said, with a massive grin on his face.

Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Price on his first 11 days in office — the nomination period closed then. But as everyone knows, he was awarded it for being left-wing and black — just virtue signalling and self-congratulations by the Norwegian Prize committee. Donald Trump could walk on water and their only comment would be to complain that he cannot swim.

How The Death Penalty Saved Civilization

How The Death Penalty Saved Civilization, by Lance Welton.

The first scholars to develop this king of all Left-triggering ideas were Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost and the late University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending. …

When Europe became Christian, the death penalty was abolished. Right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages, people were left to settle their own disputes by fighting each other or demanding, from the state, that the murderer pay a fine for killing their relative. But, as Frost and Harpending put it, the Church gradually came to accept that, the “wicked” should be executed “so that the good can live in peace.”

With biblical justification, more and more crimes became subject to the death penalty. By the High Middle Ages, every single felony (any crime serious enough to have traditionally warranted the confiscation of property) was met with the hangman’s noose.

Those sent to the gallows were almost always high-testosterone young men prone to violent crime. In fact, Frost and Harpending calculated that one percent of the male population were executed every generation throughout the Middle Ages. And another one percent were killed at the scene of the crime or died in fetid prisons awaiting trial or execution. So two percent of young men were eliminated every generation.

And because they tended to be young, this process meant that they had fewer children than if they hadn’t been executed. Thus, they would have passed on fewer of their genes.

It’s here that Frost and Harpending perceptively draw their conclusion. Capital punishment must have changed the nature of European personality — by, in effect, culling out the psychopaths.

Criminality is strongly predicted by three key traits associated with psychopathology:

  • Low impulse
  • controlLow altruism
  • Low mental stability.

These traits are at least 50 percent genetic.

The murder rate collapsed between the 14th and 20th centuries and they statistically proved that part of the reason for this was the continual killing of the most impulsive and disagreeable young males every generation. The pool of violent men essentially dried up.

Those who were executed were overwhelmingly poor, with poverty associated with poor impulse control and low altruism. They had to be extremely poor because, in England at least, if you could read, then you could avoid execution by claiming “benefit of the clergy.”

With modern progressive immigration policies, the West now imports people from societies that haven’t had the same genetic experience –and have a much higher rate of criminality. The left of course deny it all.

But wait, it gets even more non-PC:

[Anthropologist Edward Dutton and Swedish psychologist Guy Madison] use the same statistical methods as Frost and Harpending to show that widespread execution was partly behind English people becoming more religious between the Medieval Era and the 16th century.

They argue that the English definitely became more religious, as evidenced by higher and higher percentages becoming monks and nuns, while heresy and witchcraft, deviations from accepted practice, grew increasingly unacceptable. And they estimate that religiousness is about 40 percent genetic, based on twin studies, and is predicted by exactly the same characteristics that predict not being a criminal: high altruism, high impulse control, and high mental stability. …

Precisely because Europeans were so intensely Christian, they didn’t adopt contraception, something which all previous civilizations had done when they got to about the stage the West reached in the early 18th century. Once contraception was adopted, it was taken up by cleverer and more educated people and used more efficiently by them, due to their higher IQ and better foresight. …

Meisenberg shows this is exactly what happened in Greece and Rome. But because of this religious rejection of contraception, it didn’t happen in the modern West until much later in our development. This meant that we could get to the Industrial Revolution before the positive correlation between IQ and number of surviving children, which you see in all primitive societies, went into reverse due to contraception.

So, in a roundabout way, widespread execution made us more religious. And, paradoxically, if that hadn’t happened, … IQ would have declined, and we would have returned to the Dark Ages, just like the Romans and Greeks and Muslims did before us.

Labor’s identity politics – the left’s blight on the hill

Labor’s identity politics – the left’s blight on the hill, by Adam Creighton.

The Labor Party’s new policy platform provides an opportunity to test the idea that parties of the left are increasingly mouthpieces for the concerns and pieties of the ­educated elite.

A striking analysis by economist Thomas Piketty has shown how the main left-of-centre parties in Britain, the US and France have steadily transformed from being parties of workers to being parties of high education since the 1950s.

He didn’t include Australia but Labor’s new 211-page document slated for discussion at Labor’s ­national conference — “a clear statement of Labor’s beliefs, values and program for government” — helps provide the answer here.

Mentions of “intersex” — that’s the “I” in LGBTIQ, in case you didn’t know — occur 63 times, ahead of those more esoteric concerns such as “wealth” (61 times) and “inequality” (47). Whatever intersex means — or is — it’s also far more important than “ownership” (12 mentions), “production” (18) and “distribution” (10).

That “bisexual” out-mentions “poverty”, 31 to 23, says it all. Ben Chifley and Bill McKell, Labor leaders who once championed the dignity and incomes of ordinary men and women, whatever their bedroom proclivities, must be turning in their graves. The light on the hill is now more like a strobe disco ball in a gay nightclub.

The 15 mentions of “LGBTIQ” and a further 21 of “LGBTI” — ­together roughly on par with “homelessness” (41) — perhaps ­reflects the ascendant intersex faction’s Bolshevik-style crushing of the formerly dominant queers, whose more mainstream views are going out of style.

But I digress. Why is the oldest political party in Australia so ­obsessed with this marginal, elitist rubbish? Why does it care about bisexuality anyway, when, as Woody Allen said, it immediately doubles your chance of a date on Saturday night.

At least upper-class women are still front of mind, given Labor’s promise to “promote diversity in corporate Australia, including a quota of 50 per cent on government boards”. Thank God for champions of change like AMP’s Catherine Brenner. …

What’s not important to New Labor:

In the section on banking you may have expected something with economic teeth. Labor clamoured for this royal commission after all. Breaking the banks apart perhaps, or changing the law to make limited liability contingent on higher taxes on top bankers? Nothing. What about how the ­financial sector siphons billions in fees each year from ordinary people — not all of them alive — arguably the biggest public policy issue in Australia today? Not a peep. …

What is important:

Labor will “establish a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex ­Status issues, to work across government and the private sector”. Just what we need, someone else on $339,460 a year to tweet and ­foment grievance. …

The current left and right parties, handing out the sinecures:

Whatever their rhetoric, Piketty suggests so-called left and right-wing parties have ditched their respective advocacy for redistribution on the one hand or genuine free markets. “The ‘left’ has become the party of the intellectual elite or the Brahmin left, while the ‘right’ can be viewed as the party of the business elite, or the ‘Merchant right’,” he says.

Super is a boon for the finance industry and a tax shelter for the well-off, but a dud for everyone else:

Far from just neglecting the poor, Labor’s determination to ratchet up the rate of compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent positively hurts them. “Raising the super guarantee doesn’t just ­reduce workers’ take-home pay, it also hits the federal budget. It is a myth that superannuation reduces government spending on ­retirement,” concludes the Grattan Institute in a paper out today.

Ok, this is from a US context, but it graphically illustrates how “progressivism” has changed”:

Will There Always Be an England?

Will There Always Be an England? By Andrew Sullivan.

London is close to unrecognizable from the city I knew as a teen. Its skyline has a touch of Dubai to it, the wealth is tangible, even obscene, the prices absurd, the energy young and incredibly diverse.

“It’s not our capital any more, is it?” my brother asks, as if seeking confirmation from me. I can see what he means, by virtue of not being there continuously as change accumulated and transformed. In a little less than a week in London, I have yet to buy anything from someone English. Everywhere I hear foreign accents or one of the more than 300 languages London now incorporates. Thirty-seven percent of the capital’s population is foreign-born — the same as New York City — and that share is predicted to be 50 percent by 2031. But New York has always been a thriving immigrant city; newcomers have always defined the place, and it’s just one of several vast metropoles in America. But London is the overwhelmingly dominant city in the U.K., and has never previously been a city of immigrants in the English psyche. London, in fact, is synonymous with the essence of England, and has been a national center since the Roman era. The counties surrounding it are called the Home Counties, because London has always been home. …

Last week’s PRRI/Atlantic study of the key voters who brought us Trump brings this out with stunning and, for me, decisive clarity:

Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, ‘things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.’ …

What few on the left seem to see is that cultural anxiety, given the ethnic and cultural transformation of the last few decades, is an entirely predictable and entirely understandable response. If people felt that someone in charge actually saw their point of view, sympathized with it, and attempted even minor changes to accommodate it, we would have a different politics. But all they had was Trump. And all they still have is Trump. …

[Britain] has long accepted immigrants, but until the 1950s, net immigration was a rounding error. Since then, it has exploded. In the last 20 years, it has reached American levels. …

It wasn’t their economic insecurity that gave us Brexit. It was that no one in charge even sensed their unease. Elites — and I count myself among the guilty — gave them nothing by way of reassurance or even a sense that they were understood instead of reviled. …

Home is indeed where one starts from. Change it too rapidly and it will disintegrate. We have been fools on mass immigration, we have been fools for preventing an honest debate about the benefits and drawbacks of diversity, and we have been contemptible in our contempt for so many of our fellow citizens. Both countries are now paying a terrible, terrible price.

A Time Of Tribalism

A Time Of Tribalism, by Rod Dreher.

Last weekend, I read Political Tribes: Group Instinct And The Fate Of Nations, a new book by Yale law professor Amy Chua. …

The book starts by talking about how Americans’ blindness to tribalism as a social and anthropological fact has been disastrous for us overseas. She quotes President Woodrow Wilson saying that “America does not consist of groups” — a statement that was bonkers on its face in a time of legal segregation, among other things. But that was the myth that Wilson wanted us to believe, and that many white Americans wanted to believe. …

That was the American ideal, though not the American reality. Chua doesn’t use that to slam America as hypocritical, though. She says that this sentiment represents America “at both its best and its worst.” That is, America aspires to be a nation where loyalty to ideals and principles trumps group loyalty — that is America at its best — but is also a nation where the better angels of our nature are so comely that cause us to overlook our demons. …

Chua talks extensively about how our very American reluctance to recognize tribalism has caused us to make catastrophic foreign policy mistakes. And not only our reluctance to recognize tribalism, but also the remarkable success we have had as a nation in restraining tribalism. Though far from perfect, we really are exceptional among the nations of the world in this achievement. The problem is, we think of it as universal, or at least universalizable.


Our ideological blindness caused us to fail to understand that the Vietnam war was not about communism, but about nationalism — and that Vietnamese nationalism also included anti-Chinese hatred. Did you know that the Chinese dominated Vietnam for almost a thousand years? I didn’t. Did you know that ethnic Chinese within Vietnam, though a minority, controlled most of the economy, even into the modern era? I certainly did not. Chua says that the US government totally missed the ethno-nationalist core of the Vietnamese nationalist struggle, preferring to understand it in Cold War ideological terms. …


When you have an ethnic minority dominating a nation’s market, you have the potential for vicious conflict. In a fascinating chapter on the fate of Venezuela, Chua discusses how that country’s light-skinned elites controlled an extremely disproportionate amount of its economic resources. Hugo Chavez — dark-skinned, kinky-haired — capitalized on this to come to power. We all know what a disaster Chavismo has made of Venezuela’s economy, but it’s very important to understand that Chavez didn’t come from nowhere. Massive inequality in Venezuela — an inequality that broke down among racial and ethnic lines — laid the groundwork for his despotic rule. …

Chavez, by the way, was popularly elected, then twice re-elected. …


Chua points out that we fetishize democracy so much in the West that we miss how democracy can exacerbate tribalism. This is what happened in Iraq, a Shia-majority country that had been ruled by police-state terror by Saddam Hussein, a member of the Sunni minority. When democracy came, naturally the Shia voted for Shia. Once in power, the Shia ruled as tribalists, securing power and privilege for themselves, and pushing the Sunni to the side. Hence, ISIS. Chua cautions that democracy is not to blame for ISIS, strictly speaking, but imposing democracy on a country saturated by religious tribalism was bound to unleash forces that produced ISIS. …


The conflict is not best understood as a religious one, but rather as a tribal struggle. The fact that the Taliban are fanatical Muslims obscures to our eyes the more important fact that they are Pashtuns, the tribe that has historically dominated Afghanistan, fighting against Tajiks and other Afghani peoples. …

The beneficiaries refuse to see:

Chua says that she wrote a piece for the New York Times in 2003, talking about how 80 percent of Venezuelans — dark-skinned men and women like Hugo Chavez — are economic outsiders in a nation in which 20 percent of light-skinned Venezuelans control most of the economy. She was not prepared for “the deluge of vicious hate mails” from white Venezuelans, who told her that racism did not exist in Venezuela, and that there were no racial barriers to black and brown progress there. …

We do the same thing. Try to convince liberals of any race that poor and working class whites who voted for Trump, and who feel marginalized, have a point. They will raise hell. Try to point out instances of anti-white discrimination, or anti-Christian discrimination, and they will either deny it or, if they admit that it happens, will say that these whites and/or Christians deserve it anyway. …

She talks about the economic and cultural clash between white coastal elites and whites in the heartland. Get this:

Tribalism in America propelled Donald Trump to the White House. If we want to understand this tribalism, we have to acknowledge the impact of inequality and the wedge it has driven between America’s whites. “Coastal elites” have become a kind of market-dominant minority from the point of view of America’s heartland, and, as we’ve seen all over the developing world, market-dominant minorities invariably end up producing democratic backlash. …

Where the US leads, the West is going:

Chua says that in America today, every group thinks they are discriminated against, and are on the defensive. Depending on which community you’re talking about, you can find evidence for it. For example:

It is simply a fact that the “diversity” policies at the most selective American universities and in some sectors of the economy have had a disparate adverse impact on whites. …

Chua brings this up in her chapter on democracy and political tribalism in America to say that whites aren’t making this stuff up. But she also goes on to point out how American blacks aren’t making it up either when they point to certain facts about their own disadvantageous position. Nor are women. Nor are … you get the point. …

We are at such a dangerous time in the US because no political tribe can dominate. An irony of white domination is that whites not only had the power to impose their will on minorities, they also had the security to loosen up, to be more inclusive and universalist.

Once a society goes tribal, it’s hard to turn back.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Child-led learning has dragged Australia down

Child-led learning has dragged Australia down, by Kevin Donnelly.

The reality, as measured by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Program for International Student Assessment tests, is that standards have either flat-lined or gone backwards.

The reasons why Australian students underperform has little, if anything, to do with funding. Compared to other OECD countries Australia’s expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product is above average.

But compared to stronger performing education systems, Australian classrooms have been forced to adopt a dumbed down, overcrowded curriculum that lacks academic rigour. …

In relation to history, for example, the curriculum is awash with references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, culture and spiritual values with minimum reference to the benefits and value of Western civilisation and the importance of the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christianity.

In relation to classroom practice, our curriculum also fails to embody best practice. Research carried out by the OECD concludes that the prevailing orthodoxy in Australian schools in based on constructivism.

Constructivism is defined as a situation where “the classroom is no longer a place where the teacher (‘expert’) pours knowledge into passive students, who wait like empty vessels to be filled. In the constructivist model the students are urged to be actively involved in their own process of learning.” …

As concluded by the UK report The Secret of Successful Schools,the philosophy of teacher-directed learning is one of no excuses, where expectations are high, there is strong discipline and a traditional curriculum based on “teacher-led, whole class teaching”. …

Another reason Australian students underperform is because our education system is highly centralised, bureaucratic and inflexible.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

John Howard backs Abbott in calling for immigration discussion

John Howard backs Abbott in calling for immigration discussion, by Adam Creighton.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Australian, the former prime minister also backed nuc­lear power, warned against the growing dominance of apparat­chiks in the political system and cautiously endorsed US President Donald Trump — “if you look through the tweeting and some of the apparent tantrums”.

John Howard, 2014

“I can’t for the life of me see why we can’t have a sensible debate about the level of immigration,’’ he said. “I’d like to hear the debate. I really would. One of the problems with political discourse at moment is we’re losing power to discuss something.” …

“No country will accept what it apprehends to be unlimited immigration. That’s the lesson out of Europe,” Mr Howard said.

How the Greenwashed Liberal Gentry Keep Out the Rabble

How the Greenwashed Liberal Gentry Keep Out the Rabble, by James Pinkerton.

Should progressivism serve the masses or the elites? Today, the elites are enjoying the lion’s share of progressive gains …

[Scott] Wiener’s bill was aimed at addressing a crisis in his city: the lack of affordable housing. Today, the median home price in San Francisco is $1.6 million, about eight times the national median. The principle cause … is the mismatch between the demand for housing and the supply of housing. That is, the surging digital economy has supercharged demand, while tightening limits on construction have enervated supply. …

In fact, most potential buyers are pushed out of the market. In the Bay Area, workers are frequently pushed out beyond the suburbs, beyond the exurbs — all the way to other cities. And so commutes of two hours or more are common. …

Wiener’s bill would have addressed this problem by partially overriding local zoning restrictions on housing density, specifically on height limits, in areas served by mass transit. It’s hard to think of a bill more friendly to the masses than that. Yet Wiener ran into a wall of liberal Democratic opposition …

Why the fierce opposition? Perhaps it’s because the dominant progressive voices in California are, in fact, regressive. That is, they prefer to protect the privileges of the landed — who benefit, of course, from high land prices — as opposed to the aspirations of the landless. …

Modern political niceties prevent the lords and ladies of today from pronouncing that they wish the rabble to be gone. And so the exclusionist argument is laundered through the green vernacular of “sustainability.” It’s by this linguistic transmutation that the selfish NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activist is elevated into a high-minded eco-hero. …

The impact of gentry liberalism is visible in a national “heat map” of real estate prices. Indeed, the pricing of coastal California — from the Bay Area to the Mexican border, and fairly far inland, too — is so hot that it’s out of reach for the proles. In Los Angeles, for instance, the typical home costs $553,000; only one in four Angelenos can afford to buy there.

In other words, the bulk of California’s 39.5 million people are finding themselves squeezed out of normal home ownership. Thus the plutocrats get their oceanfront views, while their maids and gardeners are forced to live far inland, 40 or 50 miles away. Moreover, an increasing number of California’s gainfully employed are forced to live in their cars. In fact, thanks to gentry liberalism, when adjusted for the cost of living, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. …

Then along came Scott Wiener to threaten this gentried-up arrangement. His argument could be stated simply: my constituents need affordable housing, so let’s change the law to allow the building of it. Wiener was making, in its essence, a class-based argument — the teeming masses, too, deserve a piece of the pie. …

History tells us that the masses, when mobilized, have a fair shot at prevailing in their class struggles—including, these days, the fight over housing. …

In the early 19th century, the poet Shelley did the math for rising British proletarians: “Ye are many—  they are few.” And in the century to follow, Britain was reformed — and transformed.

San Francisco is an extreme, but there are many similar cases in the West today.

Migrant caravan gathers on U.S.-Mexico border before asylum bids

Migrant caravan gathers on U.S.-Mexico border before asylum bids, by Delphine Schrank.

Hundreds of people from a Central American migrant caravan rallied on Sunday at the U.S.-Mexico border, many preparing to report to U.S. authorities later in the day to make asylum claims that may land them in detention centers.

The month-long caravan that at one point gathered 1,500 immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador drew the wrath of President Donald Trump during its journey through Mexico. …

The remaining 400 or so members of the caravan now face hard choices, whether to cross illegally into the United States, ask for asylum at the border or try to remain in Mexico.

“I feel a little cold. I feel anxious,” said Jaime Alexander from El Salvador in the morning, shaking slightly on his way to the Tijuana, Mexico side of the border fence on a Pacific Ocean beach.

Some young men clambered up and straddled the fence, legs dangling into California. The migrants were cheered on the San Diego side by U.S. immigration activists.

There are reports that American lawyers have crossed the border and are coaching the migrants on what to say to seek asylum.

hat-tip Charles

Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ Shock

Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ Shock, by James Delingpole.

Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?

Here is the simple truth, from the satellites that have observed almost the whole world since 1978:

From the beginning of 2016 to now is one of the biggest drops in global temperature ever recorded by instruments, over 0.6 degrees Celsius. To put that in context, the entire modern global warming which extends back to maybe 1900, is thought to be about 0.8 to 1.0 degrees. The claim in the Delingpole article is for a drop over a two year period, which rules out some of the deeper but sharper drops where there was a warming rebound immediately afterwards.

In the news? Crickets.

Did anyone predict this? Yes, sort of. A couple of people said there would be a cooling from about 2017, including me. I believe my prediction was the most credible, by virtue of having the best reasoning behind it.

I used a spectral method from engineering that no one seems to have thought of applying to climate before, but is the obvious and correct way to search for a link between solar activity and temperatures here on Earth. That method showed a most unexpected feature, a notch in the spectrum at 11 years — which is the average length of a sunspot cycle. No one knew that until I found it.

The implication of the notch is that temperatures on Earth follow the sunspot activity after a delay of about one sunspot cycle. Sunspot cycles vary between 9 and 13 years, and the current one is long, at 13 years. There was a relatively major downturn in solar activity starting around 2004:

Add 13 years to 2004, and you get 2017 as the start of the corresponding fall in surface temperature here on Earth. The graph above is one I published on Joanne’s blog in 2014, where the downturn starting around 2017 was predicted.

The world of climate is dominated by mainstream climate scientists who are fairly certain carbon dioxide is the cause of warming. Even among people who are skeptical of the carbon dioxide theory, the field is crowded, and most people have little technical knowledge but are mostly in it for the politics. So it is difficult to stand out and be noticed, even when you have something novel and correct to say.

The notch delay theory made the predictions of a downturn in 2017 first in 2014, and then again in 2016. See here, here, and here.

Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).

By the way, it was not increasing carbon dioxide that caused most of the recent global warming. There is a mistake in all the climate models, dating back several decades and due to a poor assumption. It is this error that makes carbon dioxide appear to be a potent warming agent, but the climate models overestimate its warming effect by a factor of five to ten. The whole global warming “crisis” is really about that one subtle error. Book coming soon.

If the notch-delay solar theory is correct, the temperatures will now trend downward for the next decade. If there is no downtrend starting around 2017 – 2020, then it is wrong.

By the way, no government funds Joanne and me — we get funding only from individual private donations. If you think this work is important and want it to continue, please consider donating to us here.

Back to Delingpole:

Meanwhile a study by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis – also largely unreported by the mainstream media – confirms what skeptics have been saying for years: that the computer models used by the alarmist establishment to predict global warming are running too hot.

According to Investors Business Daily:

In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

As Lewis explains: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

hat-tip Charles

“No Attacks, No Victims”: Syria Chemical Attack Video Participants Speak At OPCW Briefing

“No Attacks, No Victims”: Syria Chemical Attack Video Participants Speak At OPCW Briefing. By Tyler Durden.

Russian officials brought fifteen people to The Hague from the city of Douma, Syria, said to have been present during the alleged April 7 chemical attack – including 11-year-old Hassan Diab, who was seen in a widely-distributed video taken by the controversian NGO organization known as the “White Helmets,” who filmed themselves giving Diab “emergency treatment” after the alleged incident.

“We were at the basement and we heard people shouting that we needed to go to a hospital. We went through a tunnel. At the hospital they started pouring cold water on me,” said Diab, who was featured in the video which Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands says was staged.

The boy and his family have spoken to various media outlets, who say there was no attack. …

Emergency paramedic Ahmad Saur who is with the Syrian Red Crescent, said that his hospital ward did not receive any patients exposed to chemical weapons the day of the alleged incident, and that all the patients either needed general medical care or help with injuries. ..

Meanwhile, the West — unhappy with this unexpected diversion to its narrative — has called the Russian press conference a “stunt” — with Britain and France both denouncing it as an “obscene masquerade.”

Hmmm. Who is telling the truth here? After the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003, it’s not so easy to assume our guys are correct.

Korean leaders meet, declare the Koreas will never be at war again

Korean leaders meet, declare the Koreas will never be at war again. By Foster Klug.

North Korean state media were silent Saturday, a day after the leaders of the two Koreas met and vowed to remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula and work toward a formal end to the Korean War. Despite the bold declaration, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in failed to provide any new measures on a nuclear standoff that has captivated and terrified millions.

North Korea’s media have not publicly mentioned the summit since reporting early Friday that Kim had left the capital Pyongyang to meet with Moon. It’s possible the North is spending extra time so that its propaganda experts can give the summit a major news treatment on television and in newspapers later Saturday.

If the substance on nuclear matters was light, the images Friday at the border village of Panmunjom were striking: Kim and Moon set aside a year that saw them seemingly on the verge of war, grasped hands and strode together across the cracked concrete slab that marks the Koreas’ border.

The sight, inconceivable just months ago, allowed the leaders to step forward toward the possibility of a cooperative future even as they acknowledged a fraught past and the widespread skepticism that, after decades of failed diplomacy, things will be any different this time.

On the nuclear issue, the leaders merely repeated a previous vow to rid their peninsula of nuclear weapons, saying they will achieve a “nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through complete denuclearization.” This kicks one of the world’s most pressing issues down the road to a much-anticipated summit between Kim and President Donald Trump in coming weeks.