Boston Herald:
Tom Brady and the Patriots rewrote the history books and the storylines last night with their epic, 34-28 victory against the Falcons in Super Bowl LI. They trailed 28-3 midway through the third quarter before ripping off the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. Prior to this, the Pats’ 10-point comeback two years ago against the Seahawks had set the bar.
Tom Brady completed 43 of 62 passes for 466 yards, two touchdowns and an interception, and he was 12 of 16 for 150 yards on the tying and winning drives in the fourth quarter and overtime. The five-time champion led his 51st game-winning drive in the 51st Super Bowl.
James White scored on a 2-yard run in overtime to cap the greatest performance of his career. He had six carries for 29 yards and two touchdowns and a Super Bowl-record 14 receptions for 110 yards and a score.
Confession: I went to bed in the middle of the third quarter, thinking the Falcons had this one in the bag. As usual, never count Tom Brady out. The guy is just phenomenal.
But the political angle to this Super Bowl isn't what you might expect. Donald Trump Jr. said it perfectly, in the third quarter no less:
Where have I seen stats like this before??? 😂🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 https://t.co/2KNR5BlTFE— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 6, 2017
Trump Jr. is referencing something like this, from the New York Times on November 8th (Election Day):The Falcons now have a 91.6% chance of winning Super Bowl LI. Live analysis: https://t.co/mk4bqHgeQr— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) February 6, 2017
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.The media would be better off following the sage advice of Han Solo: "Never tell me the odds."
In other news...
Huffington Post:
The Republican-led Congress killed a controversial U.S. securities disclosure rule early on Friday aimed at curbing corruption at big oil, gas and mining companies.Explain how paying taxes and fees is proof of corruption? If anything, it proves they are being law-abiding. This is a good example of government regulating because it can, and not for any real purpose.
In a 52 to 47 vote, the Senate approved a resolution already passed by the House of Representatives that wipes from the books a rule requiring companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp to publicly state the taxes and other fees they pay to foreign governments.
Finally...
Daily Mail:
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
...His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
...The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.Another example of how the global elites are manipulating the facts to suit their own purposes.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
The even greater irony is this still doesn't make the connection to so-called anthropogenic climate change. It makes you wonder how that science got settled?
No comments:
Post a Comment