When Can A Big Storm Or Drought Be Blamed On Climate Change?

That’s the question NPR delves into. Unsurprisingly, the answer seems to be “always” and “whenever it’s convenient”

(NPR) Nowadays, when there’s a killer heat wave or serious drought somewhere, people wonder: Is this climate change at work? It’s a question scientists have struggled with for years. And now there’s a new field of research that’s providing some answers. It’s called “attribution science”— a set of principles that allows scientists to determine when it’s a change in climate that’s altering weather events … and when it isn’t.

The principles start with the premise that, as almost all climate scientists expect, there will be more “extreme” weather events if the planet warms up much more: heat waves, droughts, huge storms.

Got that? They start out with a premise based on wishful thinking and prognostication. Too bad extreme weather isn’t cooperating.

But then, there have always been periodic bouts of extreme weather on Earth, long before climate change. How do you tell the difference between normal variation in weather — including these rare extremes — and what climate change is doing?

That sort of discernment is difficult, so scientists have had a rule, a kind of mantra: You can’t attribute any single weather event to climate change. It could just be weird weather.

Then they took a close at last year’s heat wave in Australia.

And, of course, as we all know, they’re blaming that heat wave on Mankind, because it can’t possibly be what happens during a Holocene warm period, which, incidentily, has seen an statistically significant warming in a generation.

Too many people are deeply invested in man caused Hotcoldwetdry, so they simply can’t say “yeah, these things happen”. It has to be mankind at fault, else, how do they effect political change to a completely leftist political, social, and economic system ?

Read: When Can A Big Storm Or Drought Be Blamed On Climate Change? »

Court Rules Missouri Must Recognize Gay Marriages From Other States – What About Gun Reciprocity?

Liberals should be very careful in opening this door, because it could easily be applied to gun permits

(Buzzfeed) Missouri must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that were granted elsewhere, state Judge Dale Youngs ruled on Friday.

“[T]o the extent these laws prohibit plaintiffs’ legally contracted marriages from other states from being recognized here, they are wholly irrational, do not rest upon any reasonable basis, and are purely arbitrary,” Youngs wrote.

The ruling followed a hearing in September on the case, which was brought by 10 same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The same could be said about gun laws in many Left leaning States, regarding “irrational, no reasonable basis, and purely arbitrary”. The judge uses the 14th Amendment to make his case, pointing towards “equal protection”. If Liberals want to open this door, let’s open it. If someone has a concealed carry permit, according to this order they would be fully allowed to carry in exactly the same way in, say, New York, as they would in their home state.

Republican/non-gun grabby States should go further, and provide inexpensive permits for open carry, which would mean Democrat/gun-grabby States would be required to allow those citizens with the permits to open carry. Otherwise, the gun-grabby States would be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Also, the Full Faith And Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1). It’s time for Republicans/Conservatives to turn the tables.

Read: Court Rules Missouri Must Recognize Gay Marriages From Other States – What About Gun Reciprocity? »

Liberals Blame Supposed Inability To Combat Ebola On “Budget Cuts”

Yes, they went there. They can’t help themselves.

Budget Cuts “Eroded Our Ability to Respond” to Ebola, Says Top Health Official

On Tuesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmedthe first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States; the infected patient was a man who traveled from Liberia to visit family in Texas. It’s the latest development in the ever-worsening outbreak of the virus, which so far has sickened more than 6,500 people and killed more than 3,000. The United States government has pledged to send help to West Africa to help stop Ebola from spreading—but the main agencies tasked with this aid work say they’re hamstrung by budget cuts from the 2013 sequester.

On September 16, the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to discuss the resources needed to address the outbreak. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) asked NIH representative Anthony Fauci about sequestration’s effect on the efforts.

“I have to tell you honestly it’s been a significant impact on us,” said Fauci. “It has both in an acute and a chronic, insidious way eroded our ability to respond in the way that I and my colleagues would like to see us be able to respond to these emerging threats. And in my institute particularly, that’s responsible for responding on the dime to an emerging infectious disease threat, this is particularly damaging.” Sequestration required the NIH to cut its budget by 5 percent, a total of $1.55 billion in 2013. Cuts were applied across all of its programs, affecting every area of medical research.

Dr. Beth Bell, director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, testified before the committee, making a case for increased funding. Her department, which has led the US intervention in West Africa, was hit with a $13 million budget cut as a result of the cuts in 2013. Though appropriations increased in 2014 and are projected to rise further in 2015, the agency hasn’t yet made up for the deficit—according to Bell, $100 million has already gone toward stopping the Ebola epidemic, and much more is needed. The United Nations estimates it will take over $600 million just to get the crisis under control.

Yeah, about that

CDC wins in budget deal (Jan 17, 2014)

This influx of cash will raise the CDC budget to $6.9 billion, which is $567 million more than it received in 2013.

567>13.

This is more than the agency anticipated, because the president’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for it was just $6.6 billion — a decrease of $270 million from fiscal 2012.

Wait, wait, wait. Why didn’t Mother Jones mention anything about Mr. Obama wanting to reduce the CDC’s budget?

Of the $6.9 billion, $1.3 billion was allocated to protect the United States from foreign and domestic threats, both intentional and naturally occurring. $255 million will go to support bio-defense efforts, and $160 million will be set aside for states to address their most pressing public health needs. The CDC will get $30 million for Advanced Molecular Detection (AMD), which will help identify potential disease outbreaks earlier and more accurately.

That’s a lot of money. What, exactly, are they doing with it?

Meanwhile, Just One Minute says you should be Concerned over Ebola in the U.S. Especially since thousands from Ebola stricken nations have entered the U.S.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Liberals Blame Supposed Inability To Combat Ebola On “Budget Cuts” »

Bummer: Pause At 18 Years 1 Month

What excuses will Warmists trot out? Because we know there is no possible way they will accept the data, conclusions, or anything that dissuades them from their fanatical devotion to the Cult. Here’s Christopher Monkton bringing the reality (also at Watts Up With That?)

(Climate Depot) The RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly for September 2014 is in, and the Great Pause is now two months longer than it was last month. Would this year’s el Niño bite soon enough to stop the psychologically-significant 18-year threshold from being crossed? The official answer is No.

Globally, September was scarcely warmer than August, which was itself some distance below the 18-year trend-line. Therefore, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

Dr Benny Peiser, our good friend at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, had anticipated the official crossing of the 18-year threshold by a day or two with an interesting note circulated to supporters on the ever-lengthening period without any global warming, and featuring our 17-years-11-months graph from last month.

The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

At this point, Warmists are screeching “why’d you pick that time period???????!!!!!!!!!” Explaining it to them again is like teaching a pig to dance. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. Well, really, the pig in this case won’t be annoyed, because they will simply tune the answer out as it flows in one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it.

Does this prove that there was no global warming, or that there won’t be any more warming? Not in the least. What it does is destroy the notion that the warming from the late 1800’s (or whatever point Warmists will focus on for their argument) is mostly/solely anthropogenic. None of their models predicted that this would occur, hence all the Excusemaking and Blamestorming and sticking their heads in the compost heaps.

Anthony Watts highlights something interesting about this from a post back in 2011

Let’s remember several years ago when all the heavy-weights of climate science produced a paper that said the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.

Carl Mears was the second author on that paper along Ben Santer (lead) [and Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl, Gerald Meehl, Peter Stott, Peter Thorne, Frank Wentz].

Well, that time has now been exceeded and they all have egg on their face.

I’m dying to see what excuses Warmists trot out.

Read: Bummer: Pause At 18 Years 1 Month »

If All You See…

…is an ocean that will rise up hundreds of feet so we need to tax the heck out of Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post reminding us about Obama blasting Bush for being unprepared for the flu.

Read: If All You See… »

Obama: “My Policies Are On The Ballot This Fall”

Well, that’s good to know, since neither the Senate nor House Democrats have actually released any sort of platform for the mid-terms as a group. At one point, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi promised to release a platform in 100 days. That would be the day before the election. But, according to the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, Obama was less than helpful to Democrats

28 words that Democrats really wish President Obama didn’t say today

President Obama was at Northwestern University on Thursday to deliver an economic speech that, he and his team hoped, would lay out the case for why the public is better off today than they were six years ago — even if they didn’t feel it in their everday lives. Instead, Obama just gave every Republican ad-maker in the country more fodder for negative ads linking Democratic candidates to him.

Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall.  Michelle’s pretty happy about that.  But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot.  Every single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot.  Every single one of them.”

You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama, that it is instead about a choice between themselves and their opponents.

Cillizza paints the problem in an obvious way: Obama is very unpopular in many of the States where Senate seats are in play. True. But he ignores a central premise: if Obama’s policies are so darned unpopular that Democrats cringe when discussing them, how good are those policies? If Democrats do not want to even bring them up, policies they either voted for or tacitly supported when Obama unilaterally decided to implement them, it’s Obvious with a capital O that the Democrat vision is Bad For America.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama: “My Policies Are On The Ballot This Fall” »

Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change””

I always find these amusing, because Warmists can’t convince themselves enough of the reality of human caused Hotcoldwetdry to make them change their own behavior

Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

If there weren’t such a stark divide between American conservatives and almost everyone else on the question of the existence and importance of climate change — a divide that can approach 40 points on some polling questions — the political situation would be very different. So if any progress on climate change is going to be made through the American political system — apart from executive orders by Democratic presidents — it is going to have to somehow involve convincing a lot of conservatives that yes, climate change is a threat to civilization.

How do you do that? The answer has more to do with psychology than politics.

The practice of tailoring a political message to a particular group is commonplace, of course. But the climate activist community has broadly failed to understand just how differently conservatives and liberals see the world on certain issues, and, as a result, just how radically different messages targeting conservatives should look.

Well, that makes sense, since the entire issue is about politics, not science

It’s worth pointing out, of course, that for many conservatives (and liberals), the current debate about climate change isn’t really about competing piles of evidence or about facts at all — it’s about identity. Climate change has come to serve as shorthand for which side you’re on, and conservatives tend to be deeply averse to what climate crusaders represent (or what they think they represent). “The thing most likely to make it hard to sway somebody is that you’re trying to sway them,” said Kahan.

No, it’s about the lack of evidence to prove that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by anthropogenic forces, primarily from greenhouse gases, and an understanding that the push by Warmists is all about enforcing a Progressive government on everyone.

In a larger context, social scientists have shown in laboratory settings that there are ways to discuss climate change that nudge conservatives toward recognizing the issue. Research is proceeding along a few different tracks. One of them involves moral foundations theory, a hot idea in political psychology that basically argues that people holding different political beliefs arrive at those beliefs because they have different moral values (even if there’s plenty of overlap). Liberals tend to be more moved by the idea of innocent people being harmed than conservatives, for example, while conservatives are more likely to react to notions of disgust (some of the conservative rhetoric over immigration reflects this difference).

This is why these leftist buffoons are getting religious leaders (ones who are Left leaning, mind you) to ignore things that the Bible actually says and push Hotcoldwetdry.

So how would this translate to a real-world message? “What you need to do is put the system first,” said Feygina. “Instead of saying, ‘Let’s deal with climate change, let’s be pro-environmental, let’s protect the oceans,’ what you need to do is come in and say, ‘If we want to preserve our system, if we want to be patriotic, if we want our children to have the life that we have, then we have to take these actions that allow us to maintain those things that we care about.’” The starting point can’t be about averting catastrophe, in other words — it has to be about pride in the current system and the need to maintain it.

Of course, since the answer is “more and more Big Government, imbued with Progressive ideals and policies, more and more taxation, and more and more restrictions on our freedoms both personally and in the private sector”, that won’t fly, either.

You want to convince me that AGW is real? Practice what you preach. I’m sure everyone who reads these posts over the years might be tired of that meme, but, it is a very basic premise. If Warmists aren’t willing to make substantive changes in their lives, why should anyone believe in what they’re selling?

Read: Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change”” »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which No One Else should be allowed to drive, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Michelle O refusing to campaign for Senate Dems.

Read: If All You See… »

Latest “Climate Change” Scare: Walruses Congregating In Large Numbers

This means doom, of course

As sea ice melts amid global warming, 35,000 walrus crowd the shores of Alaska

In days of yore, the life of a Pacific walrus was idyllic. Blubbery and social, these 1 1/2 ton beasts laid on sea ice, holding court. Their favorite food, shellfish, was just a short trip down to the ocean floor. Sure, it’s cold down there, but these tusked giants can slow their heartbeats to withstand polar temperatures.  If there was a squabble, it was likely about love or love lost.

This harmony has now been threatened by climate change. Due to global warming, the sea ice favored by walrus has disappeared — and now, in northwest Alaska, more than 35,000 walrus have come ashore seeking refuge.

“The walruses are hauling out on land in a spectacle that has become all too common in six of the last eight years as a consequence of climate-induced warming,” said a release from the U.S. Geological Survey. “Summer sea ice is retreating far north of the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea in U.S. and Russian waters, a condition that did not occur a decade ago.  To keep up with their normal resting periods between feeding bouts to the seafloor, walruses have simply hauled out onto shore.”

“Those animals have essentially run out of offshore sea ice, and have no other choice but to come ashore,” Chadwick Jay, a research ecologist in Alaska with the U.S. Geological Survey, told the Guardian.

Obviously, this never happened before. We’ve never watched nature programs with huge numbers of walruses (and other types of seals, seal lions, etc) hauled on to the beach. Hey, maybe they were huddle for warmth. And, perhaps the story is “blatant nonsense

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’

‘The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s’

‘Dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.’ – ‘Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.’

Walruses known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”

As Anthony Watts notes

Because -there’s no other possible explanation- global warming must be to blame.

In the unenlightened old days, the appearance of 35,000 walrus would have been a cause for optimism, evidence that the species was doing well. But in this age of post normal science, such an event has to be interpreted as a portent of global warming – and so, by definition, it must be spooky and bad.

It’s more evidence that the Church Of Gore will do and say anything to keep their cult going.

BTW, even if this was happening because of global warming, it in no way would prove anthropogenic causation, just something that has happened during Holocene warm periods.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Latest “Climate Change” Scare: Walruses Congregating In Large Numbers »

Surprise: The Science Is Not Really Settled

That’s not according to me: Time magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger says it. Sort of

The Climate Deniers’ Newest Argument

It’s a lot easier to attack environmental scientists when you make up something they didn’t say—and then criticize them for saying it

There are few things more satisfying than when people you’re arguing with say something manifestly wrong or tone-deaf. It’s the polemical equivalent of getting a big, fat fastball right right in your sweet spot. Just swing away with a look of disdain or checkable fact and the home run trot is yours.

Alas, that happens less often than one might like, but there’s nothing that stops you from pretending your adversary said something dumb and then pouncing on the imaginary remark. Thus we had the “You didn’t build that” and “Let Detroit go bankrupt” silliness of the 2012 Presidential campaign, in which both President Obama and Mitt Romney were pilloried for saying things they never actually said—or at least didn’t mean—at all. And so, too, we have the “Climate science is settled” charade, in which climate change deniers hand-select four words environmental scientists often do say, reframe those words to mean something else entirely, and then beat the scientists up for faux-saying it.

Interesting. Because AL Gore did, in fact, say “the science is settled” in front of Congress. Climate scientists, leftist opinion writers, pundits, newspapers and media outlets favorable to the notion of “climate change” constantly say it.

Read: Surprise: The Science Is Not Really Settled »

Pirate's Cove