That New Study Saying Global Warming Is Occurring Much Slower Than Thought Doesn’t Say That Or Something

Two days ago we were offered up a glimpse of a new study that basically said that the previous models were utter trash, as Skeptics have been noting for years and years. And now the spin starts

New Climate Study Doesn’t Contradict Global Warming, No Matter What Breitbart Says

….

Things went totally off the rails from there. “The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean—the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong,” bloviated The Sun. “Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming,” Breitbartpiled on.

It got so out of hand that the University of Oxford-based researchers released a statement yesterday disavowing the idea that we now longer need to take aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions, followed by a response article in The Guardian this morning.

Here’s what really happened. …

You know some serious spin is coming your way.

Whether the authors are correct in their baseline or not, the study’s message isn’t that it’s time to rest on our laurels if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. But that misleading message was compounded when some outlets keyed in on a suggestion in the paper that climate models have “overestimated” warming by 0.3 degrees C, taking this to mean that temperatures are not rising as quickly as the IPCC says they are. Not only was the paper was not intended to assess discrepancies between climate models and observations, its findings are in line with the IPCC, a fact which the authors readily admit.

That is exactly what the study was saying, prior to the spin starting.

“Out predictions for warming rates over the coming decades are identical to those of the IPCC,” study authors Miles Allen and Richard Miller wrote in the Guardian.

The IPCC models are well over what the actual observations ended up being.

Comparing models with observations isn’t always an easy or even a good thing to do.

This entire schtick is based on models. And when the observations don’t agree, the observations are changed, not the model outcomes.

Still, the essential conclusion of this new study didn’t differ all that much from those that came before it: We need aggressive carbon reductions immediately if we want to keep climate change to a minimum.

When will Gizmodo give up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral?

Read: That New Study Saying Global Warming Is Occurring Much Slower Than Thought Doesn’t Say That Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a world that has so much drought that the ground turns to rock, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Crawdad Hole, with a post wondering if it’s OK to punch a woman if she’s a Nazi.

Read: If All You See… »

Entitled Millionaire NFL Players Ask For SJW Month

And this is how you kill a sport by driving a large chunk of your fan base away

Memo: NFL players ask Roger Goodell for support in racial equality campaign

Current and former NFL players campaigning for racial equality and criminal justice reform wrote a lengthy memo to league commissioner Roger Goodell officially seeking overt league support in their effort, including an endorsement for an activism awareness month, Yahoo Sports has learned.

The 10-page memo, obtained by Yahoo Sports, was sent to Goodell and executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent in August, requesting wide-ranging involvement in their movement from the NFL. The memo seeks an investment of time and education, political involvement, finances and other commitments from the league. It also sought to have the NFL endorse the month of November as an activism awareness month, similar to the periods of league calendar dedicated to breast cancer awareness and military recognition.

It was endorsed by four players: Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett, Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, former Buffalo Bills wideout Anquan Boldin and Eagles wideout Torrey Smith.

What could possibly go wrong? They can blame the hurricanes, but, what of this past weekend? What of when the ratings keep dropping, because fans tune into their own team, but tune out to the others which they would normally watch? If the NFL tries this, or, really, even pays lip service to it, the ratings will drop like a stone, merchandising will collapse, and there won’t be the money to pay these same entitled players their millions per year.

But, hey, if they really want racial equality, then there needs to be a cap on players by race. So, we’d have to cut the number of Blacks in the NFL down to no more than 14%, while increasing the number of Whites, Latinos, and Asians, among others. Seems fair, right?

Oh, and if they want to do all this, why don’t they put their own money where their mouths are, instead of Demanding that the NFL pony up?

Read: Entitled Millionaire NFL Players Ask For SJW Month »

Climate Deniers Just Want To Protect The Status Quo That Gave Them Great Lives Or Something

Guardian writer John Gibbon is having a snit fit, as most Warmists do on their favorite subject, and he’s Very Upset that 1st Worlders do not want to give up their modern lifestyles

Climate deniers want to protect the status quo that made them rich

From my vantage point outside the glass doors, the sea of grey hair and balding pates had the appearance of a golf society event or an active retirement group. Instead, it was the inaugural meeting of Ireland’s first climate denial group, the self-styled Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in Dublin in May. All media were barred from attending.

Its guest speaker was the retired physicist and noted US climate contrarian, Richard Lindzen. His jeremiad against the “narrative of hysteria” on climate change was lapped up by an audience largely composed of male engineers and meteorologists – mostly retired. This demographic profile of attendees at climate denier meetings has been replicated in London, Washington and elsewhere.

How many people in the room had children or indeed grandchildren, I wondered. Could an audience of experienced, intelligent people really be this blithely indifferent to the devastating impacts that unmitigated climate change will wreak on the world their progeny must inhabit? These same ageing contrarians doubtless insure their homes, put on their seatbelts, check smoke alarms and fret about cholesterol levels.

Why then, when it comes to assessing the greatest threat the world has ever faced and when presented with the most overwhelming scientific consensus on any issue in the modern era, does this caution desert them? Are they prepared quite literally to bet their children’s lives on the faux optimism being peddled by contrarians?

Well, interestingly, this would apply to the majority of Warmists, since the majority refuse to change their own behavior to match their stated beliefs. It actually seems like so many of them, especially the leaders, are even worse, as they jet around the world on private jets, hang out on meg-yachts, and cruse around in gas guzzling limos.

What’s their excuse?

“We have been repeatedly asked: ‘Don’t you want to leave a better Earth for your grandchildren,’” quipped the comedian and talk show host John Oliver. “And we’ve all collectively responded: ‘Ah, fuck ’em!’” This would be a lot funnier were it not so close to the bone.

Well, since his audience is made up of only fellow travelers, it must mean that Warmists are saying “ah, fuck ’em!”

Facing up to climate change also means confronting the uncomfortable reality that the growth-based economic and political models on which we depend may be built on sand. In some, especially the “winners” in the current economic system, this realisation can trigger an angry backlash.

What Skeptics want is for everyone to be able to live the modern life, especially one that fossil fuels allowed the 1st World to live, one which allows Warmists to sit around and whine, rather than having to spend all their time tilling fields by hand or working in a mine. Warmists would prefer to restrict that modern lifestyle from mostly brown and black people. Seems as if they’re rather racist.

(Photo is from the article, used under Fair Use laws, of Singer Gigi Love protests outside Trump Tower in New York. Climate sceptics are prepared to ‘bet their children’s lives on the faux optimism being peddled by contrarians’. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images)

Read: Climate Deniers Just Want To Protect The Status Quo That Gave Them Great Lives Or Something »

Surprise: Washington Post Blamestorms Trump Admin Over St. Louis Shooting Case

The Washington Post Editorial Board has decided to have a snit fit over the case of St Louis officer Jason Stockley shooting and killing Anthony Lamar Smith. The headline read St. Louis is what happens when the Justice Department won’t do its job. The editorial spends 3 paragraphs giving the briefest of overviews of the case, certainly not enough to make a truly informed decision (though they do provide a few links), as the judge who found Stokely not guilty had to make his decision (note: I think Stokely is guilty. Perhaps not 1st degree murder, but, certainly some level of murder).

They also forget to mention Smith’s criminal history, his fleeing arrest, and what the judge had to say in the decision.

It then moves on the reports that police were chanting “whose streets? Our streets”, something I mentioned as well, but, let’s consider, there is only one report of this. There doesn’t seem to be video of this. One would think there would be one video with audio, what with all the smartphones. But, this has made the WPEB apoplectic.

The police department says it’s investigating the chant. But in the wake of Mr. Wilson’s ruling, officers’ co-opting of a slogan often adopted by protesters of police violence sends a signal to black St. Louisans that law enforcement views them as adversaries, rather than as a community deserving protection.

Well, the community, or at least a certain section which is responsible for the bulk of crime in St. Louis, seems the police as adversaries to start with. But, none of that is really the point

The Justice Department declined to press charges against Mr. Stockley during the Obama administration. Yet despite Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s disdain for police reform, the facts as they stand in St. Louis are more than enough to merit federal review of the city’s police force. In a sign of Mr. Sessions’s priorities, the Justice Department announced— coincidentally, on the day of Mr. Stockley’s acquittal — that it would roll back a program designed to assist local law enforcement with reforms. That stranded the St. Louis County Police Department, which had sought help following the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson within county lines. Mr. Stockley’s case is one more reminder of how much is lost under a Justice Department that refuses to rise to the task.

Gotta love it: this occurred during the Obama admin, they didn’t do a thing about (nor should they have done anything, IMO), but, the blame is shifted to the Trump admin and Jeff Sessions. The program is being changed from trying to get a community which hates the police and often refuses to help the police to one which helps the St. Louis PD do more traditional policing, such as “arresting violent criminals, breaking up gangs, and making drug busts.” That’s per the Buzzfeed link in the above paragraph (St. Louis County Police Department).

Buzzfeed goes on to note that not one report on the program was published since the inception of what was called the COPS program under Obama, nothing which states whether it was even effective.

But, hey, let’s blame Jeff Sessions, because why not?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Washington Post Blamestorms Trump Admin Over St. Louis Shooting Case »

If All You See…

…are rough waves caused by extreme weather from Other People not buying sustainable fruit, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a responsible lifestyle now being raaaaacist.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: ABC Developing “Comedy” About Illegal Aliens

As if we don’t get enough social justice warrioring from the entertainment industry, now they’re going to give it a shot with illegal aliens

(Deadline) With the topic of immigration firmly in the headlines, most recently over President Donald Trump’s decision yesterday to end the DACA program, it has become a very popular subject for TV series projects this season.

Written by David Feeney (New Girl, 2 Broke Girls) and to be directed by Christine Gernon (Speechless, New Girl), the comedy revolves around a hard-bitten husband and empathetic wife who butt heads over the chaos created when they provide sanctuary for their undocumented nanny and her family — and come to learn, if their marriage survives, that the differences both families have aren’t as significant as their similarities. Feeney and Gernon executive produce for 20th Century Fox TV.

Well, yes, we are rather similar. All families and individuals have problems. The big difference here is that the illegal aliens knowingly chose to enter the US in contradiction to our laws and further violate those laws by staying.

The David Feeney comedy joins several other recently set-up projects that tackle the subject of immigrants, including the undocumented.

Gina Rodriguez is producing two such projects at the CW and CBS. They are Illegal, a dramedy about the family of a teenager who was brought to the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant when he was a child, and Have Mercy, which centers on a Latina doctor who’s unable to practice when she immigrates to Miami.

CBS also has another show in the works,  and Fox reportedly has two. Essentially trying to mainstream law breakers.

And then they wonder why so many are cutting the cord. There are exactly two network shows I watch: Hell’s Kitchen and Masterchef. The last regular show was Under The Dome, and gave up on that turd after suffering through the last half of the 1st season. Boy, that was horrible.

Read: Good News: ABC Developing “Comedy” About Illegal Aliens »

San Francisco, Oakland File Lawsuits Against Oil Companies Over ‘Climate Change’

They add to the list of California municipalities and counties that are suing, all of which should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels in things like government owned police cars, fire trucks, other emergency vehicles, buses, work vehicles, etc. And the fossil fuels companies should threaten to pull all their stations out of the areas

(The Hill) San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., are suing five major oil companies, blaming them for the effects of climate change.

The cities announced Wednesday they each filed a lawsuit in their respective county courts against Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

The lawsuits by two of California’s largest cities add to an emerging legal strategy to try to hold individual fossil fuel companies responsible for rising sea levels, extreme weather and other effects of human-induced climate change.

They trot out the same old stale talking points, but what they’ll have a hard time doing, provided the suits aren’t dismissed out of hand, is proving harm. Courts won’t accept the notion that there could maybe might possibly we think that Hotcoldwetdry will cause harm in the nebulous future, but, of course, the courts out on the West coast are full of nutty leftists, so, hey, you never know. The San Fran sea rise station shows no acceleration, and only 1.94mm per year increase, which equates to .64 feet over 100 years, exactly average for the Holocene. The station at Alemeda shows only .24 feet per hundred years.

Extreme weather? Good luck making that case. Other effects? Will they blame the lawlessness, violence, crime, and poverty on the fossil fuels companies? Good luck with that, because the companies certainly have lawyers on staff who are much better educated and much smarter.

Chevron said it welcomes opportunities to fight climate change, but the cities’ lawsuits are not constructive.

“Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” the company said in a statement.

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action. Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”

They were nice about it.

“The claims in these lawsuits are without merit,” said Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri. “We will vigorously defend ourselves against them.”

Of course, the suits will probably be withdrawn, because they cost money, and these cities are just trying to make a point and/or shakedown the oil companies.

Read: San Francisco, Oakland File Lawsuits Against Oil Companies Over ‘Climate Change’ »

NY Times Op-Ed: Government Shouldn’t Give Big Tax Breaks To Attract Companies

The NY Times has give former Delaware governor Jack Markell (Democrat), who served from 2009-2017, a platform to bash government giveaways to corporations, which is very interesting, considering what the NY Times itself received for their building

Let’s Stop Government Giveaways to Corporations

Amazon recently sent state and city officials across the country scrambling to respond to its announcement that it was seekingenticements to build a second headquarters, promising 50,000 new jobs and $5 billion in investment to the winning location. Governments are mobilizing to devise lucrative incentive packages. I know how this works, because I spent eight years supporting these types of incentives as the governor of Delaware.

Amazon’s public encouragement of a bidding war highlights a competition that state and local governments engage in every day. I became very familiar with this process: A big business promises thousands, hundreds or even dozens of jobs and waits for offers from mayors and governors eager to demonstrate to voters that they are bringing them jobs. In Delaware, our economic development office, with my full approval, was busy calculating direct subsidies to corporations through grants and tax breaks.

I was as guilty as any elected official at playing this game. But it’s a game that should stop. There’s a better way to compete for business.

Mr. Markell then spends a bit of time discussing the types of tax breaks, incentives, fee reductions, etc, that Amazon is asking for, and states are offering, and how this is pretty darned normal as states compete for businesses. He “doesn’t blame Amazon” and “doesn’t blame public officials” for playing this game, but, he just doesn’t like it, darn it all! It Offends him.

The result is a market failure in which neither side is motivated to fix the problem. State and local policy makers can’t unilaterally opt out without potentially negative consequences for their constituents, while businesses have a fiduciary obligation to pursue these short-term direct incentives. Competition for jobs should not be seen to hinge on which government can write the biggest check to an employer but on the kinds of things that officials in Delaware and other states spend so much time on to make their communities places worth living in: the quality of schools, work force development programs, the transportation grid and other infrastructure, and the overall quality of life.

I bet when Mr. Markell goes to buy a vehicle he demands they give it to him for their “lowest price”, then demands more. Car sales people would certainly prefer to see the vehicles at sticker, so they can make money, rather than cutting their prices to compete with the other dealers who are trying to undercut them. Same in tons of sales industries. If you can go to one supermarket and get your favorite tea mix for $4.85, and another for $3.85, where are you going?

What does Markell want?

The solution is straightforward: Congress should institute a federal tax of 100 percent on every dollar a business receives in state or local incentives that are directed specifically to that company. This would not include investments in public infrastructure, work force development or other investments that can attract employers while also providing a significant long-term benefit to taxpayers.

This tax would, however, end payouts that go directly to a company’s bottom line and would eliminate the pressure these companies are under to pursue such enticements. I’m talking about incentives like direct grants to a company in exchange for the creation of a specific number of jobs (something we did in Delaware while I was governor) or free or reduced land or the passage of a tax policy tailored specifically to one company.

Good luck making that happen, and, of course, the Democrat fallback position is always to tax tax tax. But, here’s an interesting thing

However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well. After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on land seized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times also received $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.

In fact, the NY Times itself reported that they received $29 million in tax breaks and other incentives, and tap-danced around the reality that they got the land and building for below market value rates thanks to Government. And the Times was super-thrilled that the city used eminent domain to take the land from the previous owners, which is certainly a perk, right?

It’s interesting that the Times allows Democrat Markell to write an op-ed blasting the exact same thing that the NY Times took advantage of, is it not? Perhaps Mr. Markell should demand that the NY Times pay his 100% tax.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed: Government Shouldn’t Give Big Tax Breaks To Attract Companies »

Hot Take: The Electoral College Is A National Security Threat Or Something

Usually, the saying is “never go full Salon.” Today it’s “never go full Politico”, as Matthew Olsen and Benjamin Hass (both Hillary supporters) lose their minds

The Electoral College Is a National Security Threat

In Federalist No. 68, his pseudonymous essay on “The Mode of Electing the President,” Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Because of the “transient existence” and dispersed makeup of the electors, he argued, hostile countries would find it too expensive and time-consuming to inject “sinister bias” into the process of choosing a president. At the time, the new American leaders feared meddling from Great Britain, their former colonial master, or perhaps from other powers such as France, and they designed a system to minimize the prospect that Europe’s aging monarchies could seize control of their young democracy.

Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness. But it’s clear the national security rationale for the Electoral College is outdated and therefore it should be retired. Simply put, it enables foreign powers to more easily pierce the very shield Hamilton imagined it would be.

Apparently, Putin kept Hillary from travelling to several states, which she needed to win in order to take the election. What this is really all about is Hillary voters not being able to MoveOn from the election loss, because they are a bunch of whiny assed children who really shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they are too mentally immature.

In Hamilton’s day, as he argued, it would have been nearly impossible for a hostile power to co-opt dozens of briefly chosen electors flung across 13 states with primitive roads. But in the social media age, the Electoral College system provides ripe microtargeting grounds for foreign actors who intend to sabotage presidential elections via information and disinformation campaigns, as well as by hacking our voting infrastructure. One reason is that citizens in certain states simply have more voting power than citizens in other states, such as Texas and California. This makes it easier for malign outside forces to direct their efforts.

Texas was going Trump, and California Hillary no matter what. But, by removing the EC, power invested in those two states would grow exponentially, taking all presidential election power out of smaller states…..but, this really doesn’t matter, because the article is just another bit of apoplectic insanity from people who aren’t emotionally mature enough to accept the results of the election.

Read: Hot Take: The Electoral College Is A National Security Threat Or Something »

Bad Behavior has blocked 6133 access attempts in the last 7 days.