The Royal Society Of Climastrology: The Pause Would Have To Last 50 Years For Us To Maybe Believe We Are Wrong

No, really (via Watts Up With That?)

(Breitbart) Attending a speech on climate change in the House of Lords, the Welsh Tory MP spoke about on his surreal experience meeting two men from the Royal Society whom he said had been sent to persuade him and fellow climate realists Peter Lilley MP and John Redwood MP to embrace the idea of man-made climate change. He said that representatives from the Society – often lauded as the most eminent grouping of scientists, founded in the 1600s – told him that they would not change their mind for at least fifty years, regardless of the evidence. (snip)

Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked:

“They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy.

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.

“Effectively, we’re all going to be dead before the Royal Society admits they’ve got their facts wrong. There could be absolutely no warming every year for the next fifty years, and the Royal Society would still maintain that climate change is a major problem”.

Of course, even if the Pause lasted another 50 years, Warmists would still find all sorts of intricate excuses. If the world entered another Holocene cool period, the Cult of Climastrology would blame that on Mankind. Why? Again, this whole movement has nothing to do with science, it is about pushing a far left Progressive (nice fascist) agenda, which would include greater and greater control of people, private entities, and economies.

Read: The Royal Society Of Climastrology: The Pause Would Have To Last 50 Years For Us To Maybe Believe We Are Wrong »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled machine that has driven through a flooded muddy area, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on gluten free zones.

Read: If All You See… »

What Are The 5 Most Important Things From Pope’s Climate Change Hysteria?

Obviously, Time Magazine, and writer Christopher J. Hale, a member in good standing with the Cult of Climastrology, don’t see this as hysteria, but super awesome. I covered this a bit in previous posts, but, it bears repeating (especially the part about Warmists, who are mostly Leftists, failing to listen to the Pope on most other things, especially abortion)

The 5 Most Important Points of Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical

(skipping straight to those points)

1. Climate change is real, and it’s getting worse. Though some politicians in the U.S. still argue about the reality of the climate change, Pope Francis doesn’t mince words: “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day,” he says.

Of course, there has been a long pause in statistically significant warming. Some data even shows a slight decrease in temps. And, as a challenge, this is no different than any of the other Holocene warm and cool periods. Hint: Mankind has tended to do better during warm periods than cool ones.

2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change.

Yet, the Pope isn’t giving up his own fossil fueled travel, and hasn’t recommended that Vatican City go completely “carbon neutral”. Weird, eh?

3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor.

Um, pretty much most things disproportionately affect the poor. Know what would help them? Affordable energy. Stop using food as fuel. Stop pissing away money on idiotic “climate change” initiatives, which line the pockets of rich Warmists.

4. We can and must make things better. Some of those who study climate change believe this process to be irreversible, too far gone. But Francis—whose first major letter was entitled Joy of the Gospel—says he doesn’t believe we should be robbed of hope. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start”

Which is interesting, because the policies of the Cult of Climastrology will institute governmental dominance over citizens, decrease liberty, and make things worse.

5. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead the charge. Francis argues that personal responsibility is an important step toward reversing climate change, but that political and structural transformations are needed for lasting change. “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.”

And there it is, the call for more Government. That’s what this is all about. Bigger and bigger government with more control over people, private entities, and economies. While minimizing the need for Warmists, including himself, to act on their beliefs within their own lives.

Read: What Are The 5 Most Important Things From Pope’s Climate Change Hysteria? »

Hillary Decides That Being Places As Secretary Of State Is Reason To Be President

As Carly Fiorina noted about Hillary, traveling is an activity

“Like Mrs. Clinton I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles but flying and traveling is an activity, it’s not an accomplishment and unfortunately she didn’t accomplish anything as Secretary of State,” Fiorina said

Now Team Hillary is recalibrating, and has decided that Being Places is an accomplishment

(The Hill) Hillary Clinton has started to formulate a strategy on one of the thorniest issues she will face on the campaign trail: her tenure as President Obama’s secretary of State.

Republicans have ripped Clinton’s reign as the country’s top diplomat, and the 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner hasn’t yet responded directly to those salvos.

She is less inclined to focus on any specific achievement than to weave her time at Foggy Bottom into a larger narrative about her experience and toughness.

“I’ve stood up to adversaries like [Russia President Vladimir] Putin and reinforced allies like Israel,” she said in her speech on Saturday at Roosevelt Island in New York City. “I was in the Situation Room on the day we got [Osama] bin Laden.”

Yes, the “reset” button worked well. And it’s not like Russia invaded another nation or something and is pushing for more.

Relations with Israel are rock bottom.

And, hooray, she was in a room watching video! By that measure, anyone watching their team win a championship on TV can count that as an achievement.

But, hey, what else is Hillary to do? Her time at State was pretty much a disaster. While there are a few bright spots, the Middle East is even more of a disaster, what with ignoring the Iranian Green Revolution, the Arab Spring, backing Assad, how Egypt was handled, and the Libyan disaster, along with Benghazi. China is bullying the US, Canada is annoyed by the the failure to approve Keystone XL, and relations with our traditional allies are poor. Let’s not forget about the massive cluster you-know-what over the Polish missile shield.

To be sure, Clinton is not citing her time at the State Department as a primary reason why people should vote for her as president. Her rhetoric so far has been focused on domestic issues, such as income inequality and the need to check corporate power, as well as appeals to crucial Democratic voting blocs, including Hispanics, blacks and the LGBT community.

Well, of course, what else can she do? Her time at State was poor, and she did virtually nothing as a Senator. What can she point to as a big success? If she was a success, there would be no need to formulate a strategy. Even Hillary couldn’t name her top accomplishments as Secretary of State.

Read: Hillary Decides That Being Places As Secretary Of State Is Reason To Be President »

Enviros Fight Against Green Energy

Pope Francis released his encyclical today regarding “climate change”, which calls for more “green” energy, which has members of the Cult of Climastrology squeeing in support (no word on whether Leftists will also follow the Pope’s pronouncements on abortion). Hardcore enviros and Warmists have long been pushing for the immediate end of the use of fossil fuels (while refusing to give up their own use), and using only alternative energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrothermal. Yet, as we see often, they like these energy alternatives in theory, not practice

(Fox News) One might expect environmentalists to fight a new power plant, but a new battle being waged by California green groups against a solar facility shows there may be something new under the sun, after all.

A solar-powered plant proposed by industrial giant Bechtel on federal Bureau of Land Management property in the Mojave Desert could supply up to 170,000 homes in Los Angeles with electricity from the sun, but it also would make life difficult for about 100 Bighorn Sheep and other critters, according to the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council. Their concerns have convinced the city not to buy electricity from the 350-megawatt Soda Mountain project.

“The City of Los Angeles spoke with one voice and rejected buying power from the ecologically damaging Soda Mountain Solar project,” the Sierra Club said in a statement. “Given the Bureau of Land Management’s recent decision to approve the project, this leadership from Los Angeles is well-timed and makes a powerful statement.”

BLM had even scaled the project back, to the point where it would have only provided (unreliable) energy for just 79,000 homes, and the project was still rejected.

Environmentalists want the sheep to be able to cross the nearby I-15 highway so they can breed with other herds and avoid becoming inbred. They claim that even the limited solar installation might get in the sheep’s way because it would be built near existing highway underpasses. Local environmentalists acknowledge that the sheep do not currently use the underpasses, but say they might in the future.

Personally, I’d be against the solar farm because it’s an eyesore and takes up huge tracts of land. I think the push should be for more small scale projects aimed more at single homes and buildings, but the far left Enviros and Warmists have been pushing these big projects. Until they are actually ready to be built.

“Since solar energy — like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and every form of energy — involves development, this is no surprise,” Epstein told FoxNews.com. “The green movement is not about creating better forms of energy, it is about minimizing development.”

All the people against the solar plant, including the LA city council, should have to deal with a reduced amount of power for themselves. But, don’t think this is the only recent project being protested

(UK Guardian) Construction of a massive hydroelectric dam is endangering the livelihoods of at least 2,000 families in Brazil’s Amazon jungle state of Para, according to federal prosecutors who recommend that efforts to move the residents be suspended.

The federal prosecutors’ office said in a statement Monday that the Norte Energia consortium that is building the $11bn Belo Monte dam on the Xingu River has violated 55 previously agreed-to items to guarantee indigenous groups, farmers and fishermen their means of survival.

Well, those are certainly legitimate reasons to suspend construction. Of course

The dam, the government has said, was designed to minimize environmental damage.

But environmentalists and indigenous groups say it would devastate wildlife and their livelihoods.

Again, that’s a good point. However, building energy plants is never clean, even “green” energy plants. What, exactly, did the Enviroweenies and Warmists think would happen? That a pristine and perfect plant would appear? They’re all for this type of energy, but mostly only in theory.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Enviros Fight Against Green Energy »

Salon: Say, All These Democrat Policies Created Black Ghettos

Salon is running an interesting article from the far left Washington Spectator, as written by Richard Rothstein, which does a pretty good job in Blaming Democrats for the current state of Black cities and neighborhoods, saying that the policies led to the current riots. Let’s discuss this, so Eric Holder doesn’t think we are all cowards on race.

America’s big race lie: How big banks and racist policies helped shape segregation, police brutality

A pattern has emerged—in Oakland, New York, Cleveland, Baltimore, the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, and beyond. Police claiming to feel threatened kill unarmed black men. Protests follow, sometimes including violence. The Department of Justice finds a pattern and practice of racially-biased policing. The city agrees to train officers not to use excessive force, encourage sensitivity, prohibit racial profiling. These reforms are all necessary and important, but ignore an obvious reality that the protests are not really (or primarily) about policing.

In racially isolated neighborhoods where jobs are few and transportation to job-rich areas is absent, where poverty rates are high and educational levels are low, where petty misbehavior and more serious crime abound, young men and cops develop the worst expectations of each other, leading to predictable confrontations.

Interesting. That last paragraphs looks much like what one would read at sites like American Renaissance and Stuff Black People Don’t Like, among others, which are termed “White Nationalists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It describes just how bad it is in Black neighborhoods

In 1968, following more than 100 urban riots nationwide, almost all in response to police brutality or killing by police, a presidential commission concluded that “[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal” and that “[s]egregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans.” The Kerner Commission added that “[w]hat white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”

“White society” was a euphemism. It was government—federal, state, local—whose explicitly racial laws, policies, and regulations ensured that black Americans would live separately. St. Louis and Baltimore, the bookmarks of our recent incidents, illustrate this.

There’s no arguing that early policies attempted to create separate neighborhoods, both by government ordinance and homeowner association rules. All of which ended up being shot down by courts. Say, who was very much behind these?

Faced with post-war housing shortages, President Harry Truman proposed expanding public housing. Conservative Republicans, rejecting government participation in private markets, introduced a “poison pill” amendment requiring that public housing be integrated. They knew that if the amendment passed, Southern Democrats would oppose any public housing, defeating the program. Northern liberal Democrats like Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota campaigned against the integration amendment, uniting with their Southern colleagues to defeat it, and the 1949 Housing Act funded segregated housing.

It’s cute how the article attempts to blame Republicans for the segregation policies of Democrats, don’t you think? I’d recommend reading the rest of the article up to the ending

We don’t have what is commonly termed “de facto” segregation—primarily resulting from private prejudice, income differences, preferences to live separately, or demographic trends. Our segregation is “de jure,” resulting mostly from racially explicit public policies designed to create residential patterns we too easily accept as natural or accidental. These policies were blatant violations of constitutional guarantees that have never been remedied. Without remedy—desegregation, in short—we are sure to see more Fergusons, and Baltimores, and Clevelands, and vainly hope to avoid them by teaching police to be gentler.

Interesting. Of course, this ignores multiple points. In many of the majority-minority cities, the Black residents are very upset when Whites and others move into their neighborhoods and rejuvenate them. In Detroit, they are very upset that young urban whites have been moving into the downtown area, cleaning it up, replacing light bulbs in the street lights, reducing crime, creating social and economic capital, and making a great place to live. This has the innocuous name “gentrification”. Because it is apparently a bad thing to make property valuable.

Segregation policies are illegal both under the law and by court decision. Far left Social Justice Warriors, such as Salon and Richard Rothstein, have to dig deep to continue their racists narrative. However, to paraphrase the “White Nationalists”, why is it that the Blacks moved into neighborhoods, both of their own/government creation and those abandoned due to white flight, and failed to create/continue vibrant communities? Why did crime rise exponentially, education crash, economic activity crash, social capital crash? Why do we see these terrible conditions within the cities named, and not named? Why has the family collapsed in Black communities? Why is being poor the norm? Why do companies not want to invest in these dangerous communities? Why can’t these Black neighborhoods succeed? Many of these “White Nationalists” say it is simply “Blacks reverting to the mean”. Republicans will say that it is liberalism. But, many mostly white very liberal cities succeed, such as Portland and San Francisco.

Perhaps we can conclude that liberalism fails Blacks, putting them in poor conditions, with little chance to escape. Whatever the cause, Blacks are certainly much, much worse under Democrat policies, both when they were creating segregation by policy/law and now, when they simply leave Blacks in misery.

Read: Salon: Say, All These Democrat Policies Created Black Ghettos »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Powers That Be, with a post on the always awesome climate change hack Bill Nye.

Read: If All You See… »

Climate Stations Show A 10 Year U.S. Cooling Trend

Obviously, members of the Cult of Climastrology will have two main complaints. First, we’ll hear about how this is “cherry picked”, because they don’t seem to have a grasp of the concept of working back from now. Second, they’ll yammer on about the US only being two percent of the globe.

(Daily Caller) Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

Here’s what it looks like

Is the trend “statistically significant”? That’s debatable, being a decrease of .61 degrees F in 10 years. But, the actual hard data does show a decrease.

Does it mean cooling is coming? Not necessarily. What it does show is that computer prognostication models continue to fail, models based on Mankind being mostly/solely at fault for the warming of whichever period the Cult decides to use, such as 1980 to 1996. Now that’s cherry picking.

Read: Climate Stations Show A 10 Year U.S. Cooling Trend »

There Are Big Divisions In Catholicism Over “Climate Change”

These divisions mirror the general public, and there’s actually a big reveal in the data

Catholics Divided Over Global Warming
Partisan Differences Mirror Those Among General Public

On the eve of a forthcoming encyclical by Pope Francis on the environment and climate change, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that U.S. Catholics’ views on global warming are broadly reflective of American public opinion writ large; a solid majority believe that Earth is warming, but there is much more division over the cause and seriousness of climate change. Moreover, the poll shows that climate change is a highly politicized issue that sharply divides American Catholics, like the U.S. public as a whole, mainly along political party lines.

About seven-in-ten U.S. Catholics (71%) believe the planet is getting warmer. Nearly half of Catholic adults (47%) attribute global warming to human causes, and a similar share (48%) view it as a very serious problem.

But more than eight-in-ten Catholic Democrats say there is solid evidence that Earth is warming, compared with just half of Catholic Republicans.1 And while six-in-ten Catholic Democrats say global warming is a man-made phenomenon and that it poses a very serious problem, only about a quarter of Catholic Republicans agree.

Among the U.S. public as a whole, belief that global warming is occurring is nearly twice as common among Democrats as Republicans (86% vs. 45%). The view that global warming is caused by human activity is roughly three times as common among Democrats as among members of the GOP (64% vs. 22%), as is the view that it represents a very serious problem (67% vs. 21%).

First, I’m wondering how any Democrat can be a Catholic, as the majority support abortion on demand. They don’t listen to the Pope on most issues, why should they listen to the Pope on this?

Second, we see that 68% believe that the Earth is warming. Count me among those who have that belief, and the raw data and facts support that belief.

But, notice that only 45% of the general public believe that it is caused by human activity. Unfortunately, it is rarely, if ever, asked as to the percent that Mankind is responsible for. Some may say a little (put me in that box). Cult of Climastrology members will say that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible, which seems to be the same feeling from Pope Francis. That said, after 25+ years of “spreading awareness”, only 45% believe the current warm period is caused by human activity.

And only 46% believe it is a serious problem. Look, even some of those who believe that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by nature are concerned. Changes in the climate can have good and bad effects. Again, though, after 25+ years of agitation this is the best that the CoC can do. 46%.

A big fail. Especially since all those who profess to believe that Mankind is at fault fail to live their lives like there is a crisis.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/611137800977711104

I don’t expect a reply. Almost no Warmists ever do.

 

Read: There Are Big Divisions In Catholicism Over “Climate Change” »

Washington Post: Say, This Obama Guy Should Strike Back Overy Cyber Hacks

OK, the Washington Post Editorial Board doesn’t exactly say Obama should do something, but that whoever is supposed to be in charge of the Executive Branch, whoever they are, should

A pathetic breach of responsibility on cybersecurity

BY ANY measure, the breach of Office of Personnel Management networks this year stands apart. It represents a failure of stewardship and a serious external threat.

After the OPM suffered a cyberintrusion in 2014, its director, Katherine Archuleta, asked Congress in February for $26 million in additional funding for cybersecurity. She said the agency stores more personally identifiable information than almost any other in the government, including banking data for more than 2 million people and background investigations for more than 30 million, among them individuals being considered for military enlistment, federal job appointments and employment by federal contractors. “It is imperative,” Ms. Archuleta wrote, that “the confidentiality of this information be secured to protect the identities, lives and livelihoods of these people, and the family members and associates identified as part of these records. The threats to identity theft, financial espionage, etc., are real, dynamic and must be averted.”

And, they were not averted, as we just saw the massive cyberintrusion, stealing information on roughly 4.2 million federal workers.

Now there is a lot of frantic closing of barn doors. The administration announced a “sprint” toward tighter cybersecurity measures. But how did it happen that a repository of such value and sensitivity was left vulnerable to theft in the first place? Both the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to protect federal civilian networks, have a lot of explaining to do.

Say, I wonder who’s ultimately in charge of those departments? Who allowed this “pathetic breach of responsibility”?

For years, Chinese intruders, among others, have zeroed in on the U.S. government and its contractors, seeking scraps of information that could be used to pry open networks. Now the Chinese hackers must think they ha ve hit the jackpot. The stolen data and security forms could easily be leveraged to blackmail or pressure federal workers, including those who handle classified information, and might also compromise foreign nationals whose names are on those security forms.

The Chinese, and other hackers, have no fear whatsoever of America, thanks to the weakness of the Obama administration.

The breach also calls for a determined probe to identify the hackers and strike back. We don’t suggest this lightly. It seems to us that just slamming doors and building more firewalls may be an insufficient response to an assault of this magnitude. An essential aspect of deterrence is the credible threat of retaliation.

While I agree with the sentiment, the WPEB fails to state how America should strike back. The editorial mentions unleashing the US Cyber Command, but they are primarily involved in defense from cyber attacks. Should the US hack the heck out of those who hack the US? In my opinion, yes. What does the WPEB think? They don’t say. We certainly can’t arrest Chinese hackers in China. Do was launch military/special forces type attacks on the hackers? They don’t say.

In the Age of Obama, no one is afraid of America. Countries are not concerned with America fighting back. Americans are more concerned about their government coming after them then countries are concerned with retaliation. Teddy Roosevelt was correct when he said “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. This isn’t about passivity: it’s about making sure countries know that power can be unleashed. Instead, we have a community organizer with a silver tongue who has failed to grow beyond his community agitator skill set.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Say, This Obama Guy Should Strike Back Overy Cyber Hacks »

Pirate's Cove