If All You See…

…is a sea that can only rise because of man’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on jobs going to foreigners.

Read: If All You See… »

Hotcoldwetdry Is As Dangerous As Imperial Japan And Nazi Germany Or Something

The latest unhinged scary fable from the Cult of Climastrology comes from Jonathan Chait

The Sunniest Climate-Change StoryYOU’VE EVER READ
This is the year humans finally got serious about saving themselves from themselves.

Here on planet Earth, things could be going better. The rise in atmospheric temperatures from greenhouse gases poses the most dire threat to humanity, measured on a scale of potential suffering, since Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany launched near-simultaneous wars of conquest.

Apparently, these delicate flowers are unable to deal with a minuscule 1.4F increase in global temperatures since 1850. There’s been little warming since the Japan and Germany started their wars, occurring from around 1979-1997. The rest of the time has been statistically insignificant to slight cooling.

And the problem has turned out to be much harder to solve. It’s not the money. The cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels, measured as a share of the economy, may amount to a fraction of the cost of defeating the Axis powers. Rather, it is the politics that have proved so fiendish. Fighting a war is relatively straightforward: You spend all the money you can to build a giant military and send it off to do battle. Climate change is a problem that politics is almost designed not to solve. Its costs lie mostly in the distant future, whereas politics is built to respond to immediate conditions. (And of the wonders the internet has brought us, a lengthening of mental time horizons is not among them.) Its solution requires coordination not of a handful of allies but of scores of countries with wildly disparate economies and political structures. There has not yet been a galvanizing Pearl Harbor moment, when the urgency of action becomes instantly clear and isolationists melt away. Instead, it breeds counterproductive mental reactions: denial, fatalism, and depression.

How many times have I said that this whole thing is political? Chait proves my point.

As far as getting serious, you’d didn’t actually think this was about Warmists making their own lives accord with their stated beliefs, did you?

But guess what everyone’s been missing in the middle of their keening for the dear, soon-to-be-departed Earth? There is good news. And not just incremental good news but transformational good news, developments that have the potential to mitigate the worst effects of climate change to a degree many had feared impossible. Those who have consigned the world to its doom should reconsider. The technological and political underpinnings are at last in place to actually consummate the first global pact to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. The world is suddenly responding to the climate emergency with — by the standards of its previous behavior — astonishing speed. The game is not over. And the good guys are starting to win.

As we can see, this is all about more and more government.

Oh, and if you aren’t following the Cult of Climastrology, you’re apparently a bad guy.

For human to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting fossil fuel, we will have to use some combination of edict and invention — there is no other plausible way around it.

By edict, he means force of law.

The rest is the normal whines and complaints, especially about Republicans and Skeptics, yet, not once does Chait say “hey, we Cultists should walk our talk.”

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Is As Dangerous As Imperial Japan And Nazi Germany Or Something »

Hillary: You Know, This Email Thing Is Complex

And she totally wants you to hear it from her! In a focus group, very legalistic sort of manner, posted to Facebook

I wanted you to hear this directly from me:

Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.

But, that’s not the problem. The problem is that she used a private email address via an insecure, offsite, unaccountable server to conduct official business, which included sensitive, confidential, and secret material. It was a violation of policy and federal laws.

What’s also a mistake was using devices not approved by State Department IT.

It’s important for you to know a few key facts. My use of a personal email account was aboveboard and allowed under the State Department’s rules. Everyone I communicated with in government was aware of it. And nothing I ever sent or received was marked classified at the time.

Alas, that’s a falsehood, except in terms of her using a personal email account to send her personal email and non-sensitive/classified/confidential contacts. The “everyone: part is about throwing a blame-net out into the waters to snare others in her problems, and could be a veiled threat to, among others, Team Obama that she could drag them in if they don’t play ball with her.

As this process proceeds, I want to be as transparent as possible. That’s why I’ve provided all of my work emails to the government to be released to the public, and why I’ll be testifying in public in front of the Benghazi Committee later next month.

A goodly chunk of what we know has been pulled like stuck teeth via Freedom Of Information requests, usually followed by taking State to court, which, even then, finds State in non-compliance and/or slow walking the release.

Since she also deleted tens of thousands of emails, which she claims are “personal”, then attempted to wipe the server, how do we know she was transparent?

I know this is a complex story. I could have—and should have—done a better job answering questions earlier. I’m grateful for your support, and I’m not taking anything for granted.

“Complex”. In other words, she’s saying it’s too big for you peons to understand why she’s allowed to do all she did in contradiction to federal policy and law, which would have seen you, at a minimum, fired from your job, and mostly likely prosecuted.

Read: Hillary: You Know, This Email Thing Is Complex »

Just 21% Support Iran Deal In New Poll

Virtually every single poll on the Iran deal here in the U.S. finds it underwater, other than a U of Maryland poll, which seems to be a complete outlier. Quite often, the polls show an erosion of support for the deal, as well

(Pew Research Center) As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion.

In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved and 22% had no opinion. Over the past six weeks, the share approving of the agreement has fallen 12 percentage points (from 33% to 21%), while disapproval has held fairly steady (45% then, 49% now). Somewhat more express no opinion than did so in July (22% then, 30% now).

Even among Democrats, support has declined. In the July poll, support was at 50%. It’s dropped to 42%.

Among Independents, support has eroded from 31% to 20%.

In both cases, some of the loss of support has moved into the “don’t know” category. Much of that could be due to it supposedly disappearing, to a degree, from the news

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 3-7 among 1,004 adults, finds that the contentious debate over the Iran agreement has not resonated widely with the public. In fact, the share saying they have heard either a lot or a little about the agreement has declined from 79% in July to 69% in the new survey. The share saying they have heard “nothing at all” about it has increased nine percentage points, from 21% to 30%.

It hasn’t completely disappeared from the news, but we are getting much less coverage. Hey, did you know this (particularly starting with the red bold I’ve added)?

Fallacious “Snapback” Sanctions. Obama has said that if Iran violates the nuclear deal, all of the sanctions can snap back into place and we will not need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council. The United States, he claims, can trigger these snapback sanctions on its own. But paragraph 37 of the JCPOA makes clear that the provisions of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be reimposed “unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise,” and it even goes on to insulate established contracts with Iran from whatever snapback sanctions are imposed. Knowing that any contracts entered into with Iran by foreign companies could survive so-called snapback sanctions even when Iran is caught cheating, the Obama administration has sent letters to the governments of China, Germany, France and Britain assuring them that companies doing business with Iran will not be penalized if Iran violates the JCPOA. Senators Mark Kirk and Marco Rubio are demanding that the Obama administration release the contents of these letters – contents that are currently undisclosed – to the American public.

Per the Corker Amendment, no review period nor vote can be held until Congress receives all relevant material. This includes side deals and letters as described above.

Meanwhile, Rep. Louis Gohmert is saying that House leadership is considering holding a vote on the Iran deal on September 11th. A day that saw so much bravery by Americans in the face of Islamic terrorism could see utter cowardice by GOP leadership. They probably do not care, they’re surely looking for a late Friday heading-into-the-weekend vote.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Just 21% Support Iran Deal In New Poll »

Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling?

Bishop Hill finds something interesting

Greenpeace are fond of telling us that the planet is going to fry because of our evil addiction to fossil fuels. How then to explain their submission to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which maintains a register of issues and potential problems with the nation’s nuclear waste repositories?

The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.

Obviously, this is all do to anthropogenic climate change, which not only makes it planet scalding hot, but, super cold at the same time.

Read: Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling? »

If All You See…

…is an ocean that will rise hundreds of feet soonish, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting Samantha Power backing the oppressor.

Read: If All You See… »

The Blight Of Wind Farms

An interesting video, via NoTricksZone, highlighting the environmental destruction and scenery blight of wind farms

A new video (below) has been produced by wind-energy protest group www.rtf-radmarathon.de presenting a series of before-and-after photos that drive home the profound negative impacts wind parks are having on Germany’s idyllic landscapes and natural scenery.

Here’s what it looks like

Read: The Blight Of Wind Farms »

Washington Post Editorial Board Goes Warmonger On ISIS

On one hand, this editorial makes sense. There is a need for a war resolution/authorization for dealing with ISIS. Let’s not forget, though, that the Washington Post was a big advocate for the 2003 Iraq war, before turning against it for political purposes. On the other hand, this seems a way to Blame Congress and protect Obama

Congress should authorize war against the Islamic State

MORE THAN a year after the United States began airstrikes against the Islamic State, the results are mixed: The terrorists have been pushed back in some parts of Iraq and Syria but have expanded their territory in others, and they continue to attract recruits and inspire the creation of affiliates in countries from Afghanistan to Libya. The Obama administration has slowly ramped up its commitment of troops, its cooperation with allies and its range of operations. To all appearances, a solid majority in Congress supports this creeping escalation; many, like us, believe that President Obama should have embraced more robust measures. Extraordinarily, however, Congress has yet to vote on authorizing the conflict, leaving Mr. Obama to act on the dubious legal authority provided by the 2001 congressional vote to support action against al-Qaeda.

Obama submitted an authorization that Republicans felt was too restrictive and Democrats felt was too loose

One big reason for Congress’s failure to act has been disputes among Democrats, Republicans and the White House over what an authorization should say. Democrats would like to include limits on the scope of the war, including a ban on ground troops and an expiration date for the authority. Republicans generally reject such provisions, seeing them as improper micromanagement of military operations or as an attempt to bind the next president.

Democrats want to give authorization while hamstringing the ability to actually fight ISIS.

Lost in this debate is what should be the overriding imperative of a vote to authorize the war. Those who insist on conditionality ensure only that the president will continue to act on authority that is as expansive as it is thin.

So, wait, the Post is now saying they don’t like Obama taking on so much power unilaterally? Where were they in condemning all his other expansions of power?

But, it does look like the WPEB is suddenly in warmongeville, eh?

Encouragingly, a bipartisan war authorization draft has emerged in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Crafted by Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), it attempts to bridge the gap between the two parties’ positions with language that discourages the use of “significant” ground troops against the Islamic State while stopping short of an explicit ban. Importantly, it does not limit the war geographically, making action against Islamic State affiliates in places such as Libya possible; and it authorizes action against any entity that “presents a direct threat” to “forces trained by the coalition,” which would cover potential action to defend Syrian rebels against the Assad regime.

Of course, they can’t make it simple, like

WHEREAS, The Islamic State has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Islamic State, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Islamic State; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

It used to be pretty darned simple: you messed with the United States, we declared war and beat you. Even the authorizations for military action, as opposed to full war, tended to be simple things.

Read: Washington Post Editorial Board Goes Warmonger On ISIS »

Hillary: “What I Did Was Allowed” Or Something

And no apology for you!

(AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because “what I did was allowed.”

In an interview with The Associated Press during a Labor Day campaign swing through Iowa, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination also said the lingering questions about her email practices while serving as President Barack Obama’s first secretary of state have not damaged her campaign. (snip)

As she has often said in recent weeks, Clinton told AP it would have been a “better choice” for her to use separate email accounts for her personal and public business. “I’ve also tried to not only take responsibility, because it was my decision, but to be as transparent as possible,” Clinton said.

Sadly, AP writer Catherine Lucey failed to do more than really regurgitate her talking points, rather than doing any research and finding things like this, which took me all of 1 minute

The department’s security policy basically forbade employees from having a mobile device on which they could use its built-in mail application to connect to a State Department account and other accounts at the same time, according to department spokeswoman Jen Psaki at a press conference on Thursday. The policy allowed users to check State Department email accounts only on a department-issued device, she said. And it barred users from connecting the mail programs on those devices to personal or other accounts, Psaki said.

State Dept policy at the time forbid anyone to receive their work email account on anything but a department issued device, because they had proper security. Hillary used her own device and created a homebrew, insecure server rather than use the appropriate device and email platform. Sure seems like Hillary did something wrong.

The one-on-one interview with AP was the second for Clinton in the past four days. On Friday, she did not apologize for using a private email system when asked directly by NBC, “Are you sorry?” Asked Monday by the AP why she won’t directly apologize, Clinton said: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.

The State Department long ago stated it was not allowed. And, perhaps the interviewer could have asked Hillary what specific policies made Hillary think she could do this? You can bet a Republican would have been asked those follow up questions.

“I did not send or receive any information marked classified,” Clinton said. “I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so.”

The article fails to mention that, in fact, classified information was on her server. A second review shows that, yes, there was classified information within her email. It’s absurd to think that nothing classified nor sensitive would not be emailed to the US Secretary of State. Hillary is attempting an “it depends on the definition of “is”” moment with the “marked classified” talking point. In fact, as the AP forgets to include, it doesn’t matter. 18 USC 793 specifically notes that it doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act specifically says it doesn’t matter.

“There is always a debate among different agencies about what something should be retroactively (marked classified),” Clinton told the AP on Monday. “But at the time, there were none. So I’m going to keep answering the questions and providing the facts so that people can understand better what happened.”

Well, for one thing, the documents were never meant to be transmitted in any electronic form, they were meant to be kept in secure reading rooms. Her aides could end up being guilty of the same thing as David Patreaus, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, which was a misdemeanor. Or even felonies. Hillary was in possession of that information, and, per her initial read-in when she took over State, should have known. And, per, US Code, it doesn’t matter: she was in possession.

“It is not a criminal investigation, it is a security review,” Clinton said. “People are asked to provide any copies of any of these materials that are the subject of the debate. So, I immediately said, ‘turn over everything.'”

The FBI wouldn’t be the ones doing a security review: that would be State. And, apparently, Hillary never received the exit briefing, nor signed the proper exit documents. Hillary, and the AP, can spin it all they want: it’s a criminal investigation.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hillary: “What I Did Was Allowed” Or Something »

Pacific Leaders Say Paris Climate Talks Are Totally Their Last Chance

Their last chance to get lots and lots of sweet, sweet cash

(AFP) Pacific leaders said Monday that upcoming climate talks in Paris are the last chance for the world to reach an agreement that can save their vulnerable island nations.

The leaders of the six smallest members of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) said they were among the hardest hit by climate change, and a binding agreement at the so-called COP21 talks in December was crucial.

Here’s one of the photos accompanying the article

Because high tide and storm surge never happened before CO2 went over the “safe” limit of 350ppm.

Territories such as Tuvalu and Tokelau fear their nations will become unlivable as rising waters erode coastlines and ruin crops, while Kiribati has purchased a large block of land in Fiji in case its entire population needs to relocate.

Except, the seas are barely rising in those areas, and there’s nothing new about sea rise during a Holocene warm period. What is this really about? Money. These island nations want lots and lots of money. Interestingly, this is what’s embedded in the photo stream for the article

It seems rather serendipitous that the big ad of the day at Yahoo News is Citi bank pimping credit cards, which shows up in the article photo stream.

Maybe these islands should be more worried about their poo infested waters. And should wonder how coral based islands came into creation in the first place.

Read: Pacific Leaders Say Paris Climate Talks Are Totally Their Last Chance »

Pirate's Cove