…is a horrible plastic water bottle causing islands to tip over from sea rise, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is And So It Goes In Shreveport, with a post on OMG, SCLS TO TCH SCL MDA CLSS IN NJ LOL!. Want to know what that means? Read the post.
Read: If All You See… »
Have you ever noticed that we see more of these stories and opinion pieces when weather events do not help the “climate change” narrative? Here’s anti-science Ian Steadman at the New Statesman
The weather and climate change are not the same thing
One of The Armstrong and Miller Show’s better sketches opens with a couple sitting in their living room on a rainy day. The man tuts, gestures to the window, and asks: “Whatever happened to global warming, eh?â€
“Stop!†a voice-over demands. “From 1 October, if you say, ‘Whatever happened to global warming, eh?’ whenever it’s a bit cold or wet, you could be cooling off – in jail.†It’s a simple gag about the kind of bore who doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
The confusion between the two is sometimes deliberate and sometimes not. The wilfully ignorant came out in force recently, reacting smugly to the plight of the 74 passengers on board the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, a Russian research vessel chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) that has been stuck in ice since Christmas Day. On 2 January, 52 non-essential crew members were successfully evacuated from the ship.
Yet, when it’s warm, when a hurricane occurs, when there are tornadoes, and “Indian summer”, etc, these same Warmists come out in force proclaiming that this weather is proof!!!!!!!!! of climate change. Heck, they now blame cold weather and snow on “climate change” caused by greenhouse gases.
Yet one localised incident does not disprove the vast body of evidence demonstrating that the world is heating up, decade by decade. This kind of propaganda trick is no different from a creationist using a missing link in the fossil record of a single species as “proof†that the entire structure of evolutionary theory is flawed.
On one hand, Ian is correct. The Earth is certainly in a warm period. But, Skeptics are not arguing against a warm period: we’re arguing about causation. Warmists proclaim that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Skeptics argue that it is mostly/solely natural. Warmists proclaim that the Arctic will completely melt. Yet, this year the Arctic was above previous years, when we were told it would be ice free in the summer. This was the least active tornado year on record. There have been no major hurricanes making landfall on the US since 2005, the longest time since the Civil War. Only one barely-a-hurricane to make landfall since 2008. This decade has been one of the snowiest on record (so far). What was drought is now wet. 4 of the past 5 winters were really cold, and this year looks to be shaping up into an average winter. None of this is supposed to happen, according to Warmists. So, yes, Skeptics highlight all these weather events, because we were told the opposite would happen.
The models predicted the opposite. They did not predict the 17 year pause. They did not predict that there would be no warming, in fact slight cooling, during the 21st Century. Climate is the long term effect of weather. 17 years is a long term.
Anyway,just remember to remind Warmists that weather is not climate when they start trotting out weather events when it gets warm.
Read: Remember, Climate And Weather Are Different (Except When It Helps Warmists) »
The heck you say
Help! I can’t use my Obamacare benefits
Jeanne Patterson really needs to see a doctor but had to cancel her appointment last week.
Why? Because her new Obamacare benefits were not in order, forcing her to spend hours and hours on hold with her insurer, Independence Blue Cross.
Many folks who signed up for coverage through the state and federal exchanges are running into roadblocks now that they are trying to use their new benefits. And though exchange officials and insurers have urged consumers to call their insurers if they encounter problems, many say they either wait endlessly on hold or get the runaround. Coverage for the first wave of Obamacare applicants took effect Jan. 1.
Patterson’s journey started New Year’s Day, when she landed in the emergency room for a stomach ailment. The Independence policy number she received didn’t work and the hospital required her to sign a form saying she would pay for care herself, though it agreed to bill her later. She then received an ID card for her HMO plan in the mail a few days later, so she made an appointment with her primary care doctor and a gastric specialist for follow up.
But when the 59-year-old went to her doctor last week, she was told he couldn’t see her because she hadn’t designated him as her primary care provider. If she wanted to be treated, she’d have to pay for the visit and lab work and request reimbursement. She spent an hour on hold with Independence trying to fix the problem and left the office without care.
She hadn’t designated that doctor as her primary care physician, which is a requirement. A “mandate”, if you will. So, she could not make the appointment, at least in a manner that would be covered by the insurance. When she went online a did so, that meant she would have to wait til February for an appointment. So she spent hours and hours calling the insurance company, without being able to talk to anyone. Independence told CNN that everything was in order, and they do not know what the problem was, and to “give them a call”. So there’s obviously a huge disconnect between what everyone knows and what the insurance company is telling the doctors.
This, and similar stories, are happening all over the country with Obamacare coverage. And, let’s be honest, this is a short term issue, at least in terms of making sure that people have coverage and everyone, especially the medical professionals and all the systems and people at the insurance companies, know it. One would have thought that everyone involved, meaning the insurance companies and government, would have worked to make this work right off the bat, instead of giving fodder to those who are against Obamacare. Instead, this whole thing highlights why having the government intimately involved is a Bad Idea.
But, the poor customer service, the long phone waits, and other issues will most likely continue. And rationing is coming. For one thing, when you artificially reduce profit, something is going to suffer. That will be the number of low level customer service reps on-staff. I know lots of folks have always thought insurance companies are big meanies, and surely there are bad stories out there, but most have few problems. In all the years I’ve been working and had insurance, multiple companies, I’ve never had a problem. In fact, I’ve always had a good experience in terms of getting help (except for one time with car insurance, but I still received quick help, and I blame the small agent). Now Obamacare looks to add tens of millions to the insurance rolls (which would be a good thing if the legislation made sense and wasn’t a complete disaster) while controlling costs. Again, something has to give, part of which will be customer service on a permanent basis.
But, remember, “lane closures”.
John Podhoretz discusses at the NY Post
Why Bridgegate made headlines but Obama’s IRS scandal didn’t
Most government scandals involve the manipulation of the system in obscure ways by people no one has ever heard of. That is why George Washington Bridgegate is nearly a perfect scandal — because it is comprehensible and (as they say in Hollywood) “relatable†to everyone who has ever been in a car. This is the reason this one is not going to go away so easily, even if one accepts the contention that Gov. Chris Christie had nothing whatsoever to do with it. (snip)
And yet, you know what is also something everybody would find “relatable� Politicians who sic the tax man on others for political gain. Everybody has to deal with the IRS and fears it. Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation — because they were ideological opponents. (snip)
And yet, according to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center, “In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.â€
The obvious difference is, as we all know, Obama’s a Democrat, Christie’s a Republican. Podhoretz goes into even more detail, including the intimate links between the media and people who work for Team Obama. Obviously, liberals, and squishy “Republicans” who tend to help Democrats more than Republicans, disagree. They say there’s not bias. Here’s Steven Taylor and the Liberalized Outside The Beltway
To begin with, I reject the premise because the IRS story did make headlines. In fact, not only was there extensive reporting on the IRS story, there were congressional hearings. As such, the notion that the IRS business was ignored is simply incorrect.
It continues on in that foolish liberal fashion, but, let’s note that there were headlines for stories like the IRS. But to quibble over the article headline, which Podhoretz may not have written (standard practice in the media), while ignoring the reality of the headlines of those stories being minimized is foolish. A goodly chunk of the articles over the Obama scandals were intended to reduce the impact of the scandals, to protect Obama, his team, and Democrats, while excoriating Republicans, marginalizing them, making the scandal about them, while reducing the actual scandal itself. That’s much different coverage than with “lane closures”.
Taylor further fails to note the difference in the amount of coverage.
The reason that Fast and Furious, the IRS controversy, and Benghazi have not resulted in the outcomes that many conservatives would like is not because they have not received adequate attention in the media (they have—as well as congressional attention), it is because those situations are not what many conservatives want them to be.
How would we know, when only a few brave reporters did their job? Folks like Sharyl Attkinsson, who has done great work investigating, and been subjected to foul mouthed abuse by the White House. Univision, which produced a report on Fast and Furious, which has resulted in hundreds of deaths, plus woundings. There was a collective yawn in the American media over the report.
All one has to do is ask a simple question: if Bush was president, or any other Republican, how would the media cover these same scandals? Consider the wall to wall, breathless, over the top coverage over Abu Ghraib, where low level soldiers somewhat abused prisoners in their care. This was blamed in the media by the media solely on Bush and Rumsfeld. Were any of Obama’s scandals treated in this manner? There’s your answer to media bias.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: What’s The Difference Between “Bridgegate” And Obama’s IRS Scandal? »
This was the 1970’s (via Not A Lot Of People Know That)
That was the 1975 Newsweek article about a coming ice age, when cold Bad Weather was caused by cooling, and just being winter and stuff. This comes via Paul Homewood at Not A Lot Of People Know That, and Paul notes
So, in a cooling world where the Arctic was getting much colder, and sea ice was expanding rapidly, we had:
- The break up of the normal flow of winds.
- Stagnant air (i.e. blocking zones)
- Extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, long freezes and monsoon failure.
In other words, exactly the same things, and worse, that are now blamed on the exact opposite, a warming world.
Exactly. Of course, cold Bad Weather from warming makes as much sense as destroying wilderness to to put up a wind farm to save the environment. Or most liberal notions.
The Hockey Schtick notes that the author of the article, Peter Gwynne, stands by the article, saying “It was accurate at the time.” Linking to Daily Climate, which has an article about Mr. Gwynne (which you should read in full), we learn (the bold and colored are from The Hockey Schtick excerpt)
The unsavory afterlife of his 1975 story clearly has not soured his journalistic fervor. “I’ve been able to write for a lot of different audiences, physicists, engineers and the general public,” Gwynne said. “I’ve been willing to accept that some of that is misused and misinterpreted.”
By and large, he added, the U.S. science press has done “a pretty good job” of covering climate change. But “the political press doesn’t check. It tends to do ‘on the one hand, on the other hand.’ A lot of reporters simply will not go into issues like global warming with any understanding that the sides are not equal.”
Journalists should not ignore climate deniers, he cautioned. “You have to give all sides a fair hearing.” But that does not mean they have to be treated equally “if they don’t have the data.” [climate skeptics DO have the data, before and after it has been tampered]Â To do so, he said, is false balance “that leaves readers out on a limb.”
That bit was about political vs. science reporting. When it comes to AGW/climate change, it is all political reporting. Science really has little to do with it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the recent polar vortex blamed on hot conditions.
…are tons of horrible, horrible horrible plastic bottles causing extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist*
The blog of the day is Are We Lumberjacks?, with a post on house rules.
*BTW, please recycle plastic bottles. They may not be evil for AGW, but they do create real pollution.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the birds are singing, playoff football is here. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets†calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Say, I wonder whether the problems and negligence surrounding the Maryland Exchange website will be a national story, where media dig into just who knew and when they knew, and what Governor Martin O’Malley (D) knew, and publish breathless reports, where we see crazy op-eds about the end of his career. Or will this just be a “local” story?
(Washington Post) More than a year before Maryland launched its health insurance exchange, senior state officials failed to heed warnings that no one was ultimately accountable for the $170 million project and that the state lacked a plausible plan for how it would be ready by Oct. 1.
Over the following months, as political leaders continued to proclaim that the state’s exchange would be a national model, the system went through three different project managers, the feuding between contractors hired to build the online exchange devolved into lawsuits, and key people quit, including a top information technology official because, as he would later say, the project “was a disaster waiting to happen.â€
The repeated warnings culminated days before the launch, with one from contractors testing the Web site that said it was “extremely unstable†and another from an outside consultant that urged state officials not to let residents enroll in health plans because there was “no clear picture†of what would happen when the exchange would turn on.
Within moments of its launch at noon Oct. 1, the Web site crashed in a calamitous debut that was supposed to be a crowning moment for Maryland officials who had embraced President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and pledged to build a state-run exchange that would be unparalleled.
Surely someone told the Governor, right? The monthly reports were basically saying “oh, crap, things are NOT going well”
Two of O’Malley’s Cabinet members, his senior IT advisers and leaders of the exchange received copies of the confidential monthly reports, according to distribution lists. The first was also summarized in the technically worded letter to lawmakers. Aides to the legislative leaders said that the significance of the warning was not clear at the time and that they never knew the outside audits continued.
It is a long, long story about just how bad the whole process was, about communications and memos of “dear lord, this thing is a mess”. But, you know, “lane closures”.
As of Friday, 20,358 people had selected private plans, and state officials have said they do not expect to come close to their initial goal of 150,000 by the end of March.
“Selected” (and certainly not “private plans”, considering the links to government). Have they paid? Received confirmation that they are officially enrolled? How many had to use paper and pen to “select”? One has to wonder how much this same story occurred in the other states that created their own Exchanges, along with the national Marketplace, and whether the media will investigate? Sorry, lane closures.
Read: Maryland Officials Knew A Year In Advance That Obamacare Website Was A Disaster »
Trackback URL
Looking at this BBC article it seems more like the “scientists” have already decided what the results will be before the “research” is even started
(BBC) Questions about the link between flooding in the UK and climate change could be answered within two years, according to a leading scientist.
Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University said the only thing holding back the work was the lack of investment.
Around £10m a year would provide a real time attribution system on the role of humans in extreme weather.
He said it was a “scandal” that the public should be denied clarity on this issue.
Here’s a novel idea: he could spend his own money, instead if pigging out at the taxpayer trough.
Scientists are notoriously cautious about linking single weather events, such as the recent storms and flooding in the UK, to rising global temperatures.
Except Warmists attempt to link virtually every weather occurrence to “climate change”. Because it’s an unhinged cult.
Read: No Faked Research On Link Between Hotcoldwetdry And Floods Is A Scandal Or Something »
…is wine that will be soon grown in Siberia, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Atlas Shrugs, with a post on Muslim students in Canada refusing to do course work with women.
PS: apparently someone didn’t like me using the previous photo. Oh, well.
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.