…is an evil carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on the dangerous progressive illusion that government makes us safer.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an evil carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on the dangerous progressive illusion that government makes us safer.
Read: If All You See… »
This is one of the reasons we cannot have a legitimate debate on “climate change”: the news media doesn’t understand what climate is. Here are two articles, the first by Jonathan Fowler at AFP
The “El Nino” phenomenon, which sparks climate extremes around the globe, is likely to take hold in the Pacific Ocean by the end of the year and could even do so within weeks, the UN said on Thursday.
There was an 80 percent likelihood that El Nino could start between October and November and 60 percent that it would do so between now and end of August, said the UN’s weather agency, the World Meterological Organization.
The El Nino phenomenon — which can lead to extremes including droughts and heavy rainfall across the globe — occurs every two to seven years, when the prevailing trade winds that circulate over surface waters in the tropical Pacific start to weaken.
It does not spark “climate extremes”. It can, and does, cause changes in weather patterns. Warmists like to point out that weather is not climate (except when they want to blame every weather event on “climate change”). In this, they are right. Climate is created by long term weather, and weather is going to do weather things. The very fact that El Ninos occur every 2-7 years is proof that it is not extreme, but, in fact, part of the overall weather patterns, which also means it is part of the normal long term climate.
Then there’s John Heilprin from the AP
There’s a strong chance an El Nino weather event will reappear before the end of the year and shake up climate patterns worldwide, the U.N. weather agency said Thursday.
The El Nino, a flow of unusually warm surface waters from the Pacific Ocean toward and along the western coast of South America, changes rain and temperature patterns around the world and usually raises global temperatures.
An update Thursday from the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization puts the odds of El Nino at 60 percent between June and August, rising to 75-80 percent between October and December. It said the expected warming would come on top of the effects of man-made global warming.
Both writers were apparently reading from the same playbook, probably a press release from the UN. Again, this is not climate: the climate patterns will not be shaken up worldwide. The weather will be shaken up, but there is nothing unusual about it. How can we have a legitimate debate when the news media is comprised of idiots?
Of course, it may be that they are intentionally using the terms in this manner to scare people regarding climate change. That is serious possibility, when we get this from the AFP article
The two climate patterns are watched carefully by scientists who say that, while they are not caused by climate change, rising ocean temperatures stoked by global warming may affect their intensity and frequency.
“It is too early to assess the precise impact on global temperatures in 2014, but we expect the long-term warming trend to continue as a result of rising greenhouse gas concentrations,” noted (WMO Secretary-General Michel) Jarraud.
Notice how the Warmists fold in a natural event, which has been occurring for a long, long time, and isn’t understood very well, under the banner of their cult. You can see in the AP excerpt that the same was done, and it also has that same quote from Jarraud. More from the AFP article
Both (El Nino and La Nina) are significant markers of global climate fluctuations.
Again, it’s weather, not climate.
It appears that he has serious concerns over losing his cushy spot as Majority Leaders
(AP) A fear of voting has gripped Democratic leaders in the Senate, slowing the chamber’s modest productivity this election season to a near halt.
With control of the Senate at risk in November, leaders are going to remarkable lengths to protect endangered Democrats from casting tough votes and to deny Republicans legislative victories in the midst of the campaign. The phobia means even bipartisan legislation to boost energy efficiency, manufacturing, sportsmen’s rights and more could be scuttled.
The Senate’s masters of process are finding a variety of ways to shut down debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
Holding fewer votes is nothing new during an election year, but Harry Reid and the top Democrats are taking this to new and higher levels.
Democrats privately acknowledge that they’re protecting vulnerable senators and don’t want McConnell to win on the carbon emissions issue. They also see hypocrisy in McConnell’s insistence on a simple majority vote for his top — and controversial — priority while he wants Democrats to produce 60 votes to advance almost everything else.
If vulnerable Democrat senators are being protected from tough votes, that should make every voter wonder just how extreme the Democrat agenda is.
If only Greg Sargent was right on this
The GOP is now officially the party of ‘get the hell out’
Exactly one year after the Senate passed an immigration reform bill that built a compromise on an exchange of increased enforcement for legalization for the 11 million, Republicans have now officially abandoned any pretense of a willingness to participate in solving the immigration crisis. Instead, they have committed the party to a course premised on two intertwined notions: There are no apparent circumstances under which they can accept legalization of the 11 million; and as a result, the only broad response to the crisis they can countenance is maximum deportations.
I’m sorry, I fail to see the problem with, you know, following federal law regarding people who have entered the nation illegally as well as overstayed visas. I wish the GOP Establishment really was saying “get the hell out”. Realistically, they do not trust Obama and the Dems to actually secure the border prior to any legalization. But, what is this really about? Paragraph 2
This means it’s now all in Obama’s hands to decide what he can do unilaterally to ease the pace of deportations and address the current unaccompanied migrant crisis.
In other words, Lefties are trying to build the nominal case for Obama acting like a potentate and decreeing “solutions” to the illegal alien problem.
Read: Sargent: The GOP Is Now Officially The Party Of “Get The Hell Out” Or Something »
It’s so simple!
(Slate) Could there be a connection between climate change and the emerging conflict in Iraq?
The short answer is a qualified yes, according to Frank Femia of the Center for Climate and Security, a Washington-based policy institute advised by senior retired military and national security leaders. He explained in a phone interview:
It’s far too early, considering this is happening in real time, to figure out what is motivating ISIS and its members. Certainly, the natural resource stresses in the region make things worse. Terrorist organizations can try to control those resources and gain significant influence and power. You can’t say climate change is causing ISIS to do what it’s doing, but it [climate change] certainly has a role to play in the region.
Increasing temperatures may also be playing a role in the recent uptick in violence. A study published last year in the journal Science showed a strong connection between high temperatures and political instability, like civil wars, riots, and ethnic violence, though the cause is not well known. A previous study has linked dehydration with decreased cognitive performance and increased levels of anxiety.
Obviuosly, it couldn’t be due to radical Islamist, nope, not a chance. (btw, the Center For Climate and Security is part of the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a radical, far left organization with all sorts of links to other radical Leftist organizations, such as 350.org and the NRDC)
This year’s major drought has coincided with the rise of ISIS, which has already used dams as a weapon of war, threatening downstream agriculture and electricity production during its march to gain control of vast swaths of territory in Syria and northern Iraq.
You have two things going on here. First, it’s a continuation of the cult, where everything is blamed on “climate change” for political purposes. Second, a complete denial of the root cause, namely, radical Islam, something Progressives are great at doing. Progressives have this aversion to seeing the reality of radical Islam. Maybe it’s their whole multiculturalism thing, maybe their hatred of America, maybe their hatred of President George W. Bush. Regardless, it’s dangerous. Even Liberal Richard Dawkins has called Progressives out on this.
Read: Know What Is Destabilizing Iraq? Climate Change, Of Course! »
…is a sea that is rising up to cover the land that has been turned into desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Coyote Blog, with a post on the fabricated data kerfuffle.
Read: If All You See… »
No, seriously, you guys, because they haven’t been attempting to communicate for over 25 years on the subject
Scientists need to become more humble and to completely re-think the way they communicate if the battle to curb climate change is to be won, one of the world’s leading climate experts has warned.
Lamenting what he calls a “mismatch†between the state of climate science and the needs of society, Professor Chris Rapley called on his colleagues across the world to throw off the shackles of tradition and engage in a radically different approach to their discipline.
Climate scientists need to be more critical about their own research, more open to the work and views of other people and to communicate much more clearly with the public, said Professor Rapley, of the University College London.
Wait, wait, that didn’t go quite the way I thought, via the headline. Professor Rapley is correct in that regard. Of course, Warmist scientists and “scientists” won’t listen.
At the same time, they need to defend their work more robustly against climate sceptics and, in a recommendation many may find surprising, rely less on scientific fact and more on narrative techniques such as personal anecdotes, emotion and rhetoric to make their points, he added. (snip)
The report (by Rapley’s group), entitled Time for Change, concluded that to communicate much more “powerfully†with the public, scientists need to personalise their story, drawing on emotions and expressing their opinions – an approach it concedes is “contrary to long-standing tradition†but which, with mainstream audiences, is more effective than piling on ever-more facts to make a point.
Now that is more what I expected. Science be damned, we have a narrative! We can preach it, baby!
Best comment
This is either a very condescending report (the general public are too thick to understand what we say), or its a very nice way of saying the science behind climate change has failed so now we have to put spin on it to keep the gravy train a rollin’.
However Marsinah, or Kependeal, or whatever the hell she’s calling herself these days likes to dress it up, if a researcher says they have to ‘rely less on scientific facts’ to put their argument across, then they are asking for faith in an idea. Which is more commonly known as a religion. You’ll forgive me for not bending my knee before this particular altar.
All of the above.
Read: Know What We Need To Fight Hotcoldwetdry? Better Communication! »
Her official emails? Not so much
(Fox News) Computer experts and Republican lawmakers are poking holes in IRS claims that the agency did all it could to retrieve embattled ex-official Lois Lerner’s allegedly “lost” emails, which the agency blames on a 2011 hard-drive crash. (snip)
But Lerner’s communications with the agency’s IT team referred to her desire to retrieve “lost personal files” — not lost emails.
And that detail is “very suspicious,” according to David Kennedy, chief executive of information security firm TrustedSec. Kennedy said that when government computers crash, email recovery should be a priority. But in Lerner’s communication with the IT team, “There is no talk about the recovery of the emails,” Kennedy said, adding, “It didn’t seem like they really wanted to recover the data.”
It’s possible that the emails shared with lawmakers and attached to a June 13, 2014, letter to leaders of the Senate Finance Committee are just a snapshot of Lerner’s communications with the IT team. But they indicate Lerner’s acute level of concern for what she referred to as her personal files.
The first email, from June 13, 2011, is a brief notification from one of Lerner’s colleagues in the Exempt Organizations division to other IRS staff that Lerner’s hard drive had crashed, with information on how to reach her. The next set of emails starts on July 19, 2011, and shows Lerner reaching out to IT staffers for their help in retrieving “lost personal files.”
“There were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable,” she wrote.
One has to wonder why she was storing such irreplaceable personal documents on a Government computer, apparently not backing them up to her own personal computer. Then, lots of people do stupid things with the computer supplied by their employer. I know of a person who had the title of Vice President for a big, big corporation who was terminated from a job in which he/she was making at least a couple hundred grand yearly because he/she was accessing pornography sites with the company provided laptop. Not through the corporate servers when logged in, mind you, but, it is company property, and accessing certain materials using the property at any time was a fireable offense. You would think he/she could have afforded a personal laptop.
Anyhow, one has to wonder if Ms. Lerner was using the computer for personal benefit in accordance with IRS policy. Regardless, she didn’t seem particularly concerned with her official documents and correspondence. But, then, she was yet another Obama official who was using non-government email for official correspondence.
Two Texas Republicans are proposing a $1 million reward to anyone who recover former IRS employee Lois Lerner’s lost emails.
Reps. Bill Flores and Louie Gohmert proposed the Identify and Recover Sent Emails Act, or the IRS Act. In addition to the big $1 million bounty, the bill would offer $500,000 to anyone with information that can be used to prosecute officials involved in destroying the emails.
Even better, the reward money would come out of the IRS budget.
Read: Lois Lerner Was Super Concerned Over Lost Private Documents »