No, the media doesn’t exaggerate or make stuff up, why do you ask? Part 4,305: Hurricane ‘journalism’

Hurricane Florence brought with it another opportunity to play “what’s wrong with this video” thanks to a Weather Channel reporter:

The Weather Channel’s explanation is as embarrassing as the video:

“It’s important to note that the two individuals in the background are walking on concrete, and Mike Seidel is trying to maintain his footing on wet grass, after reporting on-air until 1:00 a.m. ET this morning and is undoubtedly exhausted,” the network said.

Science! Except people who are exhausted exaggerate less, not more.

Oh, and keep in mind that these are the same people pushing climate change alarmism, but I’m sure they wouldn’t exaggerate about that stuff. /s

The above video reminded me of this classic:

JOURNALISM!

(h/t Twitchy)

Washington Post editorial board spots more Trump collusion, this time with… a hurricane?

Gee, why do so many Americans distrust the media?

The Trump presidency has made liberals so effing insane that even the mainstream media is heavily infected with TDS. Here’s just one example:

Trump hasn’t even been in office two years and already he’s trying to help destroy the Carolinas, or something:

President Trump issued several warnings on his Twitter feed Monday, counseling those in Florence’s projected path to prepare and listen to local officials. That was good advice.

Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.

As Rahm Emanuel once said, “never let a crisis go to waste,” and the mainstream media was paying attention. In other news, the mainstream media wonders why two-thirds of Americans view them with skepticism.

Next up from the WaPo editorial board: Hurricane Florence and how Russia made it worse with Trump’s help.

‘First Man’ actor & director wanted Apollo 11 film to ‘reflect Neil’ Armstrong, except for that one historic moment

Go figure

When it comes to Hollywood’s depiction of awful moments in American history, they might defend themselves showing all the gruesome details on the screen by saying “it’s important and the full story needs to be told.” But when America leads the way in one of the greatest achievements in human history, there’s plenty of space on the cutting room floor for scenes that might drive that point home. But the reason given for why one of the most iconic moments in history wasn’t depicted in a new movie about Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 seems to be, well, kind of ridiculous:

The upcoming Neil Armstrong biopic “First Man,” from “Whiplash” and “La La Land” director Damien Chazelle, premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Wednesday to rave reviews and early Oscar buzz. But the movie doesn’t include a key scene in Armstrong’s mission to the moon and an integral moment in American history.

The movie omits the moment of the American flag being planted on the moon (though the flag is present in the film), and the movie’s star Ryan Gosling, who plays Armstrong, defended the decision when asked about it at Venice (via The Telegraph).

Gosling, who is Canadian, argued that the first voyage to the moon was a “human achievement” that didn’t just represent an American accomplishment, and that’s how Armstrong viewed it.

“I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement [and] that’s how we chose to view it,” Gosling. “I also think Neil was extremely humble, as were many of these astronauts, and time and time again he deferred the focus from himself to the 400,000 people who made the mission possible.”

Gosling added, “He was reminding everyone that he was just the tip of the iceberg — and that’s not just to be humble, that’s also true. So I don’t think that Neil viewed himself as an American hero. From my interviews with his family and people that knew him, it was quite the opposite. And we wanted the film to reflect Neil.”

They “wanted the film to reflect Neil”? Well, Neil planted an American flag on the moon and Hollywood chose not to depict that — so no, they actually didn’t want the film to reflect Neil.

Also to try and spin this as wanting the story to depict a “human accomplishment” and not an American one is weapons-grade ridiculous. The Apollo 11 moon landing was a quintessential American accomplishment. In JFK’s “we choose to go to the moon” speech in 1962, the “we” he spoke of wasn’t “the world” or “all humans” — “we” was the United States, which was in the middle of a space race against the Soviet Union at the time. Hollywood’s revisionist history in “biographies” strikes yet again.

The director of “First Man” said the choice to omit a scene depicting Armstrong planting the American flag at the Sea of Tranquility wasn’t a political one, so perhaps they thought a short scene showing one of the most iconic moments in history would make their 2 hour and 18 minute film 30 seconds too long, or something.

A scene showing how Armstrong and Aldrin struggled to get the flag in place on the moon due to problems with how it was packed could have actually provided the film with a moment of “yep this is definitely a government operation” levity, but obviously somebody didn’t want to go there — in order to accurately reflect Neil, or something.

Just think how bad this climate change hypocrisy study would look if it took into account Gore, Kerry, DiCaprio & the rest

Ya don’t say!

Note: The findings below have a margin of error of plus or minus Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and John Kerry, who were all unavailable to participate in the eco-hypocrisy study because they couldn’t be reached in their private jets:

The study divided 600 adults who reported on their climate-change beliefs into three groups: “skeptical,” “cautiously worried” and “highly concerned.”

Then the researchers — from the University of Michigan and Cornell University — tracked how often they reported doing things like recycling, using public transportation, buying environmentally friendly consumer products, and reusing shopping bags. And they asked about support for government mandates like CO2 emission reduction, gasoline taxes and renewable energy subsidies. The Journal of Environmental Psychology published the findings.

What they found was very illuminating.

The researchers found that the “highly concerned” group was the least likely to take individual action, but they were the most insistent on government action. The “skeptical” group, in contrast, was the most likely to recycle, use public transportation and do other environmentally sound things all on their own. Skeptics were least likely to endorse costly government regulations and mandates.

“Belief in climate change,” the researchers explained, “predicted support for government policies, but did not generally translate to individual-level, self-reported pro-environmental behavior.”

Ya don’t say!

The conclusions from that study come as NO surprise. Take me for example — I think Al Gore and any other number of apocalyptic climate change cultists and eco-doomsday preachers are full of more sh*t than the septic tank outside Ex-Lax’s human testing facility. And because of that, they’d consider me part of the “problem.” But at the same time, my family tries not to leave lights on in rooms that nobody is in; We keep the thermostat fairly low (mostly because I’m usually too hot); We carpool when possible; We try not to waste gas; We pick up trash when we’re out walking; We volunteer to clean up the river walk; And we plant trees because we like trees — not because we’ve fooled ourselves into believing that planting trees is our noble contribution towards helping make John Kerry’s multiple mansions and Richard Branson’s airline fleet carbon-neutral.

Meanwhile, the most vocal and sanctimonious of the “emissions are destroying our planet” bunch are busy flying around the world to climate change conferences, denouncing Exxon from their SUVs and throwing darts at boards with pictures of Scott Pruitt on them and thinking they’re actually doing something.

Bill Nye’s argument for abortion is as stupid as his arguments for everything else

Bill Nye the “fake science guy” is a world class dipshit, and the libs love it!

That’s what passes for “logic” on the Left. Fortunately, people with functional brains have dismantled Nye’s “debunking” of pro-life positions:

Nye’s central argument is that human embryos should not be protected by law, because many of them perish from natural causes before they implant in the womb. Based on this, he claims that if you think life begins at fertilization and is worthy of protection:

Then whom are you going to sue? Whom are you going to imprison? Every woman who’s had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy who’s sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn’t become a human? Have all these people failed you?

That statement is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, just as the statement that “all people eventually die” is irrelevant to the issue of murder. Both of these issues are about people actively ending the lives of others, not nature taking its course.

National Review also did a good job of setting Nye’s straw man on fire.

Keep in mind that’s the guy the White House trots out to support their climate change “science.” But his “argument” will make total sense to the people who believe there’s such a thing as free health care and college, and that’s all that matters to the Left.

What a surprise: Fighting ‘climate change’ is now over a $1.5 trillion racket and July was the hottest month ever

You know, if we had an honest and inquisitive media, it’s possible that some intrepid reporter might want to know if “data” like this…

…could possibly be influenced by numbers like this:

Press headlines never say “July 2014 was the hottest month ever, say scientists whose grant money hinges on hottest months ever.” Go figure.

Bill Nye’s being a detestable, dishonest climate change hack again

What an asshole:

Because SCIENCE!

Alaska’s largest known wildfire was in 1956, around the time Nye’s alarmist predecessors were cooking up their “next ice age” theory. And of course Texas was never hit by tropical storms, hurricanes and floods before people started driving cars.

Obama and Nye put out more fossil fuel emissions in one unnecessary trip to Florida on Air Force One recently than you or I probably ever will for the rest of our lives, but WE’RE the “science” deniers.

Virgin Galactic ‘spaceship’ crashes during test; Will ‘eco’ space vacation hopefuls ask for their down-payments back?

More than 700 people, including Leonardo DiCaprio, have paid up to a quarter million dollars for a suborbital flight aboard Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic spaceship.

There has been delay after delay, and eventually I’m guessing most of them will ask for their money back. Branson’s group isn’t even close to a successful test at the 62-mile altitude the ship’s supposed to reach, and today’s test went tragically wrong:

A suborbital passenger spaceship being developed by Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic company crashed during a test flight on Friday at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California, killing one crew member and seriously injuring the other, officials said.

The crash of the vehicle, undergoing its first powered test flight since January over the Mojave Desert, 95 miles (150 km) north of Los Angeles, came days after another private space company, Orbital Sciences Corp, lost a rocket in an explosion moments after liftoff in Virginia.

Worth mentioning, even though at this point there’s no word about what caused the crash:

During the nine months since the previous rocket-powered test in January, Virgin Galactic switched SpaceShipTwo’s fuel mixture from a rubber-based compound to a plastic-based mix — in hopes that the new formulation would boost the hybrid rocket engine’s performance.

I don’t even want to drive a car designed by “greens” let alone get on an effing rocket engineered by them.

So the NIH was ‘under-funded’ and couldn’t pay for Ebola vaccine research, eh?

Now that Ebola is in the U.S., Democrats with no shame are blaming GOP “funding cuts.” That claim is not only total BS, but at a glance it appears the NIH has been over-funded if anything.

The Free Beacon uncovered nearly $40 million worth of NIH expenditures of dubious societal value. Some examples:

For instance, the agency has spent $2,873,440 trying to figure out why lesbians are obese, and $466,642 on why fat girls have a tough time getting dates. Another $2,075,611 was spent encouraging old people to join choirs.

Millions have gone to “text message interventions,” including a study where researchers sent texts to drunks at the bar to try to get them to stop drinking. The project received an additional grant this year, for a total of $674,590.

The NIH is also texting older African Americans with HIV ($372,460), HIV and drug users in rural areas ($693,000), HIV smokers ($763,519), pregnant smokers ($380,145), teen moms ($243,839), and meth addicts ($360,113). Text message interventions to try to get obese people to lose weight have cost $2,707,067.

The NIH’s research on obesity has led to spending $2,101,064 on wearable insoles and buttons that can track a person’s weight, and $374,670 to put on fruit and vegetable puppet shows for preschoolers.

A restaurant intervention to develop new children’s menus cost $275,227, and the NIH spent $430,608 for mother-daughter dancing outreach to fight obesity.

Sexual minorities have received a substantial amount from the NIH. The agency has now spent $105,066 following 16 schizophrenic LGBT Canadians around Toronto for a study on their community experiences.

The total for a project on why gay men get syphilis in Peru is now $692,697 after receiving additional $228,425 this year. The NIH is also concerned about postpartum depression in “invisible sexual minority women,” with a study that has cost $718,770.

Millions went to develop “origami condoms,” in male, female, and anal versions. The inventor Danny Resnic, who received $2,466,482 from the NIH, has been accused of massive fraud for using grant money for full-body plastic surgery in Costa Rica and parties at the Playboy mansion.

How transwomen use Facebook is the subject of another NIH study worth $194,788.

Looks like the NIH has been wonderful stewards of tax dollars so far, so why not blame Republicans for failing to double their budget?

If you think Ebola is hard to get rid of now, wait until it’s heavily “funded.”

Richard Dawkins thinks failing to eliminate that which is not as perfect as Richard Dawkins is immoral

Richard Dawkins has spent much of his life arguing that religion leads to immorality and yet he can vomit up crap like this without feeling a twinge of irony:

Not to go all “Godwin’s Law” here, but wasn’t “it’s immoral to allow them to live” pretty much Hitler’s justification for marching Jews into the ovens? Apparently the brilliant Dawkins can’t appreciate the slippery slope his approach would create. Eventually somebody might come along that considers people like him to be an imperfect stain on humanity — you know, kind of like I feel about him right now.

Since when do “evolutionary scientists” take it upon themselves to decide who deserves a chance to “evolve”? That’s not evolutionary science, that’s evolutionary activism, and history is full of really ugly examples of people in that particular movement.

I for one feel sorry for Dawkins, but my wife’s good friend who’s the mother of a great kid who has Down Syndrome might kick him in the nuts for criticizing her “immoral” choice. But we can’t all be as absolutely perfect as Richard Dawkins.