Bob Carter on the Global Warming Conference

GLENN: Well, we found out last week that there is a major global warming summit that is happening in New York City. You are not going to find this out from the mainstream press because no one is going to cover it. But all of the big experts on the other side are coming to New York to meet. We're having dinner with several of them tonight and talking to them. Bob Carter is one guy. He is from Australia. He's in town. He just finished speaking. He's a paleo climate expert. He's looked at the climate going back not just a couple of hundred years or a thousand years but millions of years. That's the way -- I mean, we keep saying, you know, they keep talking about global climate change. The climate is always changing. I mean, explain the ice age. Explain how we can find things in Antarctica that appear, and he will know the truth on this. I have read that it looks like at one point Antarctica may have been a tropical zone. I don't know if that's true or not but he would. Bob Carter. Hello, Bob, how are you?

CARTER: Oh, hello, Glenn, and thank you for having me on your show again. It's a pleasure to be here as always.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. All right. First of all, can you tell me is that true about Antarctica? Do you know, was that ever a tropical zone?

CARTER: Well, it was certainly not covered by an icecap and a lot warmer than today and it had profuse vegetation. How do we though that? Because if you look at the rock deposits underneath the ice in Antarctica, you find there are coal scenes and, of course, coal scenes means that there was lush vegetation. Now, those coal scenes are several hundred million years old. They are quite old, but nonetheless a long time ago Antarctica was indeed a very different, much warmer continent than it is today.

GLENN: Okay. Now, when you looked at the Earth's samples, they say that what's coming is just horrendous and we're all going to be dying in a fiery flood somehow or another because the Earth is warming up. Has the Earth ever been this warm or where they say it's going to be in 1,000 years at any other time; and did life survive?

CARTER: Well, yes, the answer to that, Glenn, is most definitely. The Earth has many times, many times in the past been as warm as it is today and warmer. For example, if we go back just a few hundred thousand years and we go to Antarctica again which you asked about, then in one of the interglacials not very long ago, the warm period in Antarctica was 5 degrees warmer than today and, you know, the planet went about its business as usual and nothing particularly untoward happened. So it's definitely the case that the climate has often been warmer. But you also referred to the fact that warming is happening today. Now, this is a very widespread misapprehension. The reality is, and no scientist disagrees with this, that in the last few years the warming that was going on in the late 20th century has, in fact, ceased and since 1998 there has been no warming whatsoever and that's now nine full years. And out of those same nine years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 4% and the costly hypothesis that the public is browbeaten with is that extra carbon dioxide causes extra warming. Well, here's the test. It's happened for the last nine years that the carbon dioxide's gone up but the planet has not warmed in response.

GLENN: Okay. When -- because I just read. This last year there's more ice up in Greenland and every place where they said the ice was melting, there's more ice there than there has been in ten years. There's more snow in North America than there has been in ten years. We've had a cold winter. What is their reasoning? Because you can't just take one year. But nine years you can start to begin to call that a trend. What is the --

CARTER: That's very good -- yeah, that's very good --

GLENN: What is the other side?

CARTER: You can begin to start to call a trend. Nine or ten years is about the minimum that you actually need and they comment in the press lately about the particularly cold winter we've had, both in the southern hemisphere and now in the northern hemisphere. All that's true and it's very true. There's a lot of ice, and the sea ice in Antarctica is now at its maximum recorded extent ever since we've had observations.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Say it again. Wait, wait, wait, say it -- wait a minute. Say that again.

CARTER: -- rather than long-term trends.

GLENN: Say that again about the ice? What was that again? Say it again.

CARTER: The ice in Antarctica, this is the sea ice surrounding Antarctica, floating on the sea, is currently at a greater extent, it is the largest area that it has been since observations began about 30 years ago. Now, that's not to say it's the greatest it's ever been in the past. Here in the last it was much greater still but in terms of modern, recent climate history, Antarctica at the moment is cooling and the apron of sea ice around it is wider than it's ever been in the last 30 years or so.

GLENN: Bob, I --

CARTER: That should not be used to necessarily say we're going into an ice age. It may be a short-term, on a scale of a decade or two, cyclic change.

GLENN: But isn't that what the planet always does?

CARTER: Absolutely. And you've got it dead right in your introductory comments when you said climate change always happens. The temperature is always either going up or down. It's actually very unusual for it to do what it's done for the last nine years and that is stay more or less constant. That's very unusual and you can be fairly sure it's about to start going down again or going up again. The point is we cannot predict which, even with our very best computer models.

GLENN: You are sitting there, Bob, at this convention. You're speaking and, you know, you guys are the pariahs of politically correct circles. How frustrating is it to sit there and talk about it and have so much evidence that, for instance, temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, how frustrating is it that you as a scientist will sit there in a room with a bunch of other scientists and you'll say, I thought what we did as scientists was disconnect from politics and religion and everything else and just speak pure science?

CARTER: Well, you are absolutely right but first let me say it's an absolute pleasure to be at this meeting and be sitting with these particular scientists because they don't have an axe to grind. They have a balanced view on this issue. Most of them, although they are skeptics in the sense that they are working scientists, and all working scientists are skeptics. On the particular issue of is humankind causing dangerous global warming, most of the people at this meeting would say, well, on the one hand and then on the other. In other words, they are agnostic rather than skeptical about the question of human influence being dangerous. But that said, it is frustrating that you cannot get that balanced view reported by the press.

GLENN: Oh, you are not going to get any of it. Bob, can you hang on just a second? We have Dr. Bob Carter from Australia. He is part of this global climate conference in New York and if you have a second, I would like to hold you over a break. I've got a network break here I've got to take. Back in just a second. Fascinating guy.

Insiders click on the audio links above to hear the complete interview...

Avenatti arrested: The lawyer now needs a lawyer

David McNew/Getty Images

At this point, I think there are about - oh - four thousand potential Democrats that may try and run for president in 2020. But we can probably take one off the list. "The creepy porn lawyer", also known by some as Michael Avenatti, was arrested yesterday afternoon in Los Angeles. And the reason why he was arrested kind of makes you think there's some kind of invisible force out there that's making sure either irony or maybe even karma is receiving it's daily offering. Michael Avenatti was just arrested for… Domestic Violence.

The alleged victim filed the complaint on Wednesday, but the incidents began on Tuesday. The woman involved is said to have bruising and swelling on her face and was kicked out of Avenatti's Los Angeles area apartment. Avenatti could be heard screaming, "This is BS, this is effing BS! She hit me first!"

RELATED: THIS spotlight hound masquerading as an attorney just got laughed out of court

Yeah, I don't think the whole "she hit me first" line is going to be a good strategy to use in court. He might want to revise that… I'm just saying.

You know, I wonder if the media - specifically CNN and MSNBC - are going to be doing any mea culpa's over the next 12 to 24 hours? They basically became Avenatti's PR wing over the past 8 months. From March to May, the two networks had Avenatti on the air over 100 times. He gave 147 interviews on both cable and network TV. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell actually said quote, "Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I've got to say."

And this was actually before he dragged Julie Swetnick into the limelight to attack Kavanaugh. You know I wonder, will this teach networks like CNN and MSNBC to maybe take a step back on over hyping and exposing every crazy, and even salacious, person or claim that comes out simply because it may be anti-Trump or GOP? Could this be a learning moment? Yeah… probably not, but one can dream.

And speaking of Kavanaugh, I've got to read this twitter exchange between one user and Avenatti on October 5th that said:

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it's Michael Avenatti's fault. Seriously.

And then Avenatti replied:

You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to "shut up" and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors.

Well that was then and this is today. Here is Avenatti's statement last night.


Michael Avenatti: 'I Have Never Struck A Woman' | NBC News youtu.be

Umm, in the court of Avenatti, #metoo and public opinion now a days - by the standard that he helped create - is this statement not "disgusting and offensive to all survivors" as he tweeted back in October? Is he not immediately guilty as accused? I wonder if all the men and women screaming at Kavanaugh and GOP Senators in elevators can now see the pandora's box that they wanted opened.

The answer is no… he's NOT guilty as accused. Avenatti is innocent of this crime… UNTIL he's found guilty. We have to presume he's innocent until all evidence comes out proving he's not. That's how this works. Let's lead by example and do something radical here… let's actually wait for all the information and evidence to come out before we convict someone of a crime.

And that right there is the real irony here. Avenatti will get the due process that he deserves, but I doubt neither he - nor anyone screaming for Kavanaugh's head - will realize what happened.

It's been a busy week for former First Ladies, and for current First Lady Melania Trump. It has also been busy for one woman who, twenty-odd years ago, while working at the White House for then-President at the age of 21, shot to fame in the most embarrassing way possible.

Monica Lewinsky has released "The Clinton Affair," a docuseries that premieres this weekend on A&E;, a six-part series examining those cringe-inducing days and months surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton.

RELATED: The #MeToo movement proves to be too strong for the Clinton apologists

In an article for Vanity Fair early this year, she wrote:

Some closest to me asked why would I want to revisit the most painful and traumatic parts of my life — again. Publicly. On-camera. With no control of how it would be used. A bit of a head-scratcher, as my brother is fond of saying. Do I wish I could erase my years in D.C. from memory, 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' style? Well, is the sky blue? But I can't. And in order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional…. An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before. When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, 'That's old news. It's from the past.' Yes. That's exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it's not easy.

She added:

Filming the documentary forced me to acknowledge to myself past behavior that I still regret and feel ashamed of," she explained. "There were many, many moments when I questioned not just the decision to participate, but my sanity itself. Despite all the ways I tried to protect my mental health, it was still challenging. During one therapy session, I told my therapist I was feeling especially depressed. She suggested that sometimes what we experience as depression is actually grief… Yes, it was grief. The process of this docuseries led me to new rooms of shame that I still needed to explore.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton—a man who has been accused of all sorts of terrible things, a close friend of Harvey Weinstein—recently admitted that he didn't feel the need to apologize to Lewinsky. Lewinsky disagrees.

I'm less disappointed by him, and more disappointed for him. He would be a better man for it… and we, in turn, a better society.

The #MeToo movement has been a wrecking ball to so many men, yet Bill Clinton, perhaps the most prolific of them all, has escaped unscathed.

One man undoes shocking climate change study because... math

Pierre Leverrier/Unsplash

The left cries "science" about anything they want to consider a settled matter. Those who disagree with the left's climate change narrative question this "science." So, the climate change crowd are branded hysterical tree-huggers, and the anti-climate change crowd are naïve hicks.

The truth about climate change, like the truth when it comes to many issues, probably falls somewhere between the two extremes. But when it comes to climate change, it's hard to have a conversation about the "science" when the scientists running the show are already convinced they're absolutely correct and they have the unquestioning major media to back them up.

RELATED: 🤣😂🤣: WaPo claims climate change is the real reason for migrant invasion

Just two weeks ago, a study published in the scientific journal Nature claimed that the oceans are warming much faster than anyone previously thought. Cue the panic and blame the President! It was a high-profile story splashed across major media outlets who were eager to promote more science that confirms one of the left's fundamental doctrines.

The study claimed ocean temperatures have risen around 60% higher than the estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But Nicholas Lewis, a British mathematician and climate-change critic quickly found a "major problem" with the study's conclusion.

Then yesterday, the two scientists who wrote the study admitted Lewis is right about the mistakes they made in their calculations. Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported. Climate scientist Ralph Keeling, who co-authored the report, says they miscalculated their margin of error – which is 10 to 70% – much larger than they originally thought.

Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported.

A 10 to 70 percent margin of error? I thought this climate change science was absolute. Imagine if your job had a margin of error that generous.

Keeling said:

Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.

The whole incident is being laughed off as a minor error. But if it wasn't for some British dude poring over this research in his basement and willing to cry foul, this latest climate change "science" would continue to be broadcast as absolute truth. Just like it always is.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.


Ocean Warming Research “Mistake" youtu.be


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from California, is doing everything she can to make sure she is re-elected in January to her spot as House Speaker.

Reasons Nancy Pelosi could give: Because she led the Democratic caucus for 16 years, and under her the House shifted hands. In fact, she was House Speaker for four years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

RELATED: Sorry Nancy Pelosi, Apple's record-shattering buyback program is proof positive tax breaks work

Reason she actually gave: Because she's a woman.

During an interview on CBS Sunday, Pelosi said:

You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women. Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.

The pink wave, they're calling it. A rise in women politicians, supposedly in reaction to Donald Trump.

Here's the general argument, as described by Politico:

Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after female voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she'll prioritize legislation empowering women on issues ranging from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.

Of course, she has a reason to use identity politics instead of merit: There's a concerted effort to have her un-seated.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out. Filemon Vela said:

I am 100% confident we can forge new leadership.

Led by, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), these are the representatives who have openly called for Pelosi's outing: Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), Seth Moulton (DMA), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Conor Lamb (D-PA), and Filemon Vela (D-TX). Campaign staff for incoming Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Jason Crow (D-CO) have said they won't vote for Pelosi.

If they have a single ounce of dignity left, they won't, at least not just because she is a woman.