Aggregator

Karen Bass is bragging about new film and TV tax incentives like a game show host giving out prizes.

It’s hard to believe there’s much hope for the last-place Mets these days, but maybe there are some signs of hope in Queens. 

Smokey Skies Does Not Mean Global Warming

Authored by Anthony Watts via American Thinker,

Every summer seems to follow the same predictable media script.

Wildfires ignite somewhere in North America. Smoke drifts hundreds or even thousands of miles. Air quality alerts are issued. Television stations fill the screen with hazy skylines. Then, before investigators have even determined how the fires started, headlines begin linking the smoke to climate change.

This year has been no different. As smoke from Canadian wildfires spread across parts of the Midwest and Northeast, much of the news coverage quickly shifted from reporting on the fires to treating them as evidence of a worsening climate crisis. Yet one crucial fact was often left out: many of the fires responsible for the smoke were ignited by lightning, a natural cause that has existed for as long as forests have.

Lightning is not new. Smoke carried by prevailing winds is not new. What is new is the growing tendency to treat every smoky sky as proof of climate change.

That illogical leap simply isn't supported by the evidence.

One of the most striking graphics I've seen tells a story you probably haven't seen in the news. Using data from the European Commission's Global Wildfire Information System, it shows that 2026 has experienced the lowest cumulative burned area across the Americas in at least the past decade.

A second graphic, using the same global database, shows that every inhabited continent is running below its recent average for area burned this year, with Africa, the Americas, and Europe at record lows.

Those are remarkable statistics. They don't mean wildfires have disappeared or that smoke isn't a serious public health concern. They simply demonstrate that the broader wildfire picture is very different from the one often portrayed in daily news reports.

If global burned areas are unusually low, why are so many stories describing an escalating wildfire emergency and attributing it to climate change?

Part of the answer lies in how we consume news. Reporters naturally cover fires that are burning today, not forests that aren't burning. Dramatic images of smoke-filled cities attract attention. Maps showing below-average burned area rarely do. The result is a form of selection bias: the public constantly sees active disasters while receiving little context about longer-term trends. It's a variation of the old news adage, "If it bleeds it leads."

History provides even more perspective.

Another telling graph comes from fire research published by the Royal Society. Drawing on evidence from more than 800 fire-scar sites across western North America, it shows that large wildfires were substantially more common before 1900 than they are today. Fire activity declined with changes in land management, livestock grazing, settlement patterns, and organized fire suppression. In other words, today's forests are not burning at historically unprecedented levels.

The broader scientific literature reflects this. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in chapter 12 of their Sixth Assessment Report has concluded there is low confidence in observed global trends for fire weather and burned area. The IPCC also reports with high confidence that the global land area burned has declined in recent decades. That is a far more cautious assessment than many news reports suggest.

None of this means climate has no influence on wildfire behavior. Weather has always affected fire, and changing climate conditions may influence fire risk in some regions. But wildfire is driven by many interacting factors: ignition sources such as lightning, accidents, and even arson, wind, humidity, fuel accumulation, insect damage, forest management, decades of fire suppression, and simple bad luck. Reducing every wildfire to somehow being caused by climate change ignores most of what really determines how a fire starts and how it spreads. The smoke itself tells us even less.

Smoke is transported by normal atmospheric circulation. A relatively modest fire season can produce severe smoke episodes if winds carry the plume over densely populated areas. Conversely, enormous fires in remote regions may receive little attention if the smoke disperses harmlessly elsewhere. Smoke over Chicago, Milwaukee, or Buffalo tells us where the wind blew from. It does not tell us why the fire started, nor does it prove that climate change was the primary cause.

Good journalism should provide readers with both immediate news and historical context. Unfortunately, wildfire coverage increasingly follows a predictable formula: smoke appears, climate change is declared the culprit, and the broader evidence rarely enters the discussion.

The public deserves far better than reporting by following a script.

Wildfires are serious. Smoke poses real health risks. Those realities don't require exaggeration or selective reporting. Before every smoky summer is presented as another chapter in an inevitable climate catastrophe, readers deserve to know the full picture, including the parts that don't fit the prevailing narrative.

Because good science depends on evidence, good journalism should too.

Anthony Watts (awatts@heartland.org)) is a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute and has over 40 years of weather reporting experience in radio, television, and print.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:45

President Trump had a priceless reaction Friday night after a crew of journalists were honored at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Adam Schefter was sold a lemon.

Jonquel Jones could be a catalyst for the Liberty’s success in the latter part of their season.

A tech entrepreneur turned “biohacker” diagnosed with an incurable disease claims that he cloned himself as a newborn baby and plans to harvest the organs as a “frontier of new paths” to reverse aging.

An 8-year-old boy was set on fire after a tabletop fire pit exploded during a family vacation in California late June.

The Dodgers looked great in Washington on Thursday, and no wonder: They got to celebrate their 2025 World Series win at the White House, in front of the nation.

By the end of the night, Cam Schlitler had successfully transferred that frustration into the helpless hands of the Phillies lineup. 

China Is Now Viewed More Favorably Than America

Public opinion toward the world’s two leading powers has undergone a notable shift. Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey reveals significant differences in how countries perceive China and the United States.

The visualization below, created by Visual Capitalist's Iswardi Ishak using Pew Research Center data, compares favorability toward both countries across 36 nations, showing where each holds the strongest public support and where opinions remain closely divided.

How the World Views the U.S. and China

The chart below plots favorable opinions of China and the U.S. using Pew Research Center’s Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey.

Regional differences are pronounced. Many countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America express more favorable views of China. The U.S. leads in nine countries: Brazil, Ghana, Hungary, India, Israel, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, and South Korea.

The Development Divide

The scatterplot reveals several broad clusters. Wealthier Western democracies generally remain skeptical of both countries, with Germany, France, Sweden, Australia, and the Netherlands posting relatively low favorability ratings for each.

Much of the developing world falls into the opposite quadrant, where China receives majority support while views of the U.S. lag behind. Pakistan stands out with a 90% favorable opinion of China versus 15% for the United States. Large gaps also appear in Malaysia (75% vs. 19%) and Indonesia (72% vs. 29%).

Several African countries, including Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, express positive views of both powers. This suggests many respondents see value in maintaining relationships with each country rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive.

Why China’s Image Has Improved

China’s improving standing reflects both rising favorability toward Beijing and declining perceptions of the United States. Recent reporting indicates that this reversal has been especially pronounced among several longstanding U.S. partners, including Canada and countries across Europe.

Public opinion rarely hinges on a single issue. Analysts point to expanding Chinese trade and diplomatic engagement, alongside changing perceptions of U.S. foreign policy and reliability. As countries deepen economic ties with Beijing, trade has become an increasingly important factor in international relationships.

Coverage from the BBC and analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations also suggest that many countries are pursuing pragmatic relationships with both powers, balancing security partnerships with growing economic ties to China.

Soft Power Remains a Global Competition

Although China receives stronger favorability ratings across most countries surveyed, the results do not necessarily translate directly into geopolitical alignment.

Instead, the survey points to an increasingly multipolar world in which economic influence, trade, diplomacy, and public perception all contribute to global power. As China expands its international presence and the U.S. works to maintain longstanding alliances, competition between the two superpowers is increasingly measured not only in economic and military terms, but also through global public opinion.

How does public opinion compare with hard power? Explore The U.S. and China Account for 49% of Global Military Spending on the Voronoi app to see how the world’s two leading powers compare in defense spending.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 21:20

Before leaving the game at Citi Field, Juan Soto had been walked twice. Jorge Polanco replaced him in the lineup. 

Anthony Volpe was back in the lineup at shortstop for the Yankees on Friday against the Phillies.

In April, Storms' ex-husband was granted an emergency restraining after he told a judge the actress was dealing with a "mental health crisis."

In April, Storms' ex-husband was granted an emergency restraining after he told a judge the actress was dealing with a "mental health crisis."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should sue Mayor Mamdani for defamation.

The release of Los Angeles' annual homeless count intensified the mayoral race, with Nithya Raman highlighting gains in her district while critics pointed to rising citywide numbers.

Highlights from the Esports World Cup in Paris and how to build a gaming PC.

Liberal: The DSA’s Demographic Sweet Spot “The most Democratic voting group in America,” notes Silver Bulletin’s Nate Silver, is “voters with postgraduate degrees but lower-to-middle household incomes of $30K to $60K per year.” And it is “very much also the sweet spot for the DSA,” whose own “most recent member survey” revealed that “80 percent...

Not Giving The Pentagon $1.5 Trillion Is the 'Greatest Threat' Facing The US, Hegseth Claims

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday, said a failure to appropriate $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget constitutes the “greatest threat” to US national security.

Hegseth, joined by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday to discuss the Trump administration’s request for an additional $87.6 billion in supplemental spending.

Hegseth before the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 21, 2026 (DoW)

Most of the money would go to the Pentagon, but approximately $11.1 billion would go to US farmers. The war with Iran has depleted Pentagon funding, and the shock to the oil economy will have a direct impact on the fertilizer market farmers depend on.

On Tuesday, Hegseth defended the supplemental funding and claimed it would be part of the Pentagon’s FY27 budget, not in addition to it. Congress has yet to approve the $1.5 trillion the Pentagon wants.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to authorize $1.15 trillion of the massive military budget, but the Senate has yet to approve it.

There is no guarantee the Republican-controlled Senate will sign off on the funding. Democrats have generally opposed the funding on party lines (only six democrats in the House voted for it) and even Republican senators have balked at the massive price tag.

Pete Hegseth: Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces. pic.twitter.com/j2AvDMdpzg

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026

Hegseth characterized the full budgetary request as a "generational investment" and claimed the supplemental funding was of the utmost importance:

"As you know, we live in a dangerous world that requires bold and swift action. Hence, this supplemental request for fiscal year 2026. This request is an urgent, necessary injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department," he said.

The "immediate needs" refers to the ongoing war with Iran, which analysts believe has cost far more than the Pentagon is willing to admit.

On Tuesday, Hegseth told Senators the war has cost approximately $37.5 billion thus far. Credible independent analysis, however, suggests the cost could already be north of $100 billion, a number much closer to the supplemental money the White House has requested.

The Pentagon wants more money than the US spent in all of World War 2 https://t.co/q6nxT8axWK

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) July 22, 2026

Unprecedented budget ask amid a 'war of choice'...

CNN split screen comparison of what Hegseth was saying months ago on the Iran War and what he said today. pic.twitter.com/YUEBfKsKIU

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 22, 2026

Regardless of the true cost of the war, Hegseth’s commitment to the $1.5 trillion funding target tracks typical military bureaucratic logic, and it marks a major boost in military spending, a nearly 50% increase from this year’s more than $1 trillion military budget.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 20:55