I’m looking to add a few more blogs to my feedreader, increasing the pool for the If All You See.. posts and Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup. Over time, many that I’ve followed for a long time have drifted away from blogging. Who would you recommend?
Read: What Blogs Would You Recommend? »
Nothing those of us who live in Reality Land didn’t already know. Of course, Warmist, or, should we call them the New Climate Deniers, will do their little dance and claim that those warm periods were completely different. Back then, natural processes drove the climate. The sun, moon, gravatic forces, volcanoes, oceans, water vapor, etc were the drivers. Now we have Someone Else driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using hair spray causing the both the warming and pause. Here’s from the summary (via The Hockey Schtick)
Yes, climate change is real … just like the world’s climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it’s the norm. And in the several oceanic studies briefly reviewed above, as well as studies pertaining to the terrestrial surface of the planet, Earth’s climate has been recognized as having shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that appears not yet to have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period, as is also demonstrated by the hundreds of other such studies reviewed on the co2science.org website. And since none of these “warm-ups,” as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air’s CO2 concentration (which hovered around 285 ppm until the Industrial Revolution started it on its upward course towards today’s 400 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th century warming of the globe was driven by concurrent anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As always, I will argue with anyone who claims that there was no warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. There was. Around 1.4F, with various decades long warming trends, punctuated by pauses. Just like has happened time and time again during the Holocene
We now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of “the late twentieth century,” indicating – once again – that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe.
The warmth of the more distant past clearly exceeded that of the recent past, with the peak temperature of the MWP exceeding that of the Current Warm Period by about 0.6°C, as best as can be determined from the graphical representation of Ran et al.’s data.
The heart of the matter is that no matter how often Warmists are provided with hard data, with reality, they won’t care. Because they will continue their fictions to no end. The “climate change” movement isn’t about science, it’s about politics. It’s about pushing Progressive, ie, fascistic, policies, about giving Government more and more control over the lives of people and over the private sector. It’s about raising taxes. About creating loyalty to The State. By force if necessary. These are people who think adding a tiny amount of CO2 into the atmosphere is stronger than the nuclear furnace hanging in the sky.
The full report in PDF form is available here.
Read: Bummer: Peer Reviewed Paper Finds Medieval And Roman Periods Were Warmer Than Present »
Good news for all you folks who have lost your insurance that you like, or are facing the prospect of losing your insurance: Obama’s annoyed that it’s difficult for you to obtain more expensive health insurance through the Exchange
(The Hill) An agitated President Obama has expressed frustration to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the faulty ObamaCare enrollment website.
A visibly annoyed Obama behind closed doors has made clear to Sebelius that it’s her responsibility to fix what has become an unwanted second-term blunder, according to senior administration officials.
White House officials say the strong words from Obama don’t mean Sebelius is necessarily in the doghouse but that she’s responsible for fixing the problem.
In other words, President Snippy Pants is upset that the optics are bad. For him. No one will be fired or forced to resign over this fiasco of a rollout. He still has Sebelius’ back. Partly since there is little chance Obama would be able to get a replacement through Senate confirmation. Mostly because he almost never gets rid of any incompetents. I do reckon Obama will be more annoyed and agitated once the House hearing featuring Chatty Kathy is done with, because there there can be a real focus on why Obama’s “signature legislation” is causing millions to lose their health insurance. CoveredCA is claiming that up to 900,000 will lose their plans.
Meanwhile, (NMP) Obama is heading to Boston today to give another campaign speech about the “Affordable” Care Act. I wonder if he will give unbelievable spin regarding his thousand and one promises that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period”. Spin like Spokesweasel Jay Carney trotted out
CARNEY: Sure. All I ask — all I ask is that when you do the report, you note that anybody who had a plan the day before the Affordable Care Act passed and was signed into law, and that — and has not been thrown off that plan and had it replaced by their insurer, has not dropped coverage of their own volition and then purchased it again in the interim, but has had that plan, is grandfathered in and can keep that plan.
He’s attempting to Blame insurance carriers for voluntarily dropping plans, as if the law didn’t add mandates which forced the plans to be dropped. Despite the administration knowing years ago that the rules put in place by HHS would cause this to happen.
Much of the spin coming from liberal politicians and cheerleaders, er, bloggers and wonks, is that it doesn’t matter that lied over and over and over and over and over again, because people are supposedly getting better insurance. Liberal Values encapsulates the foolishness
The question of whether people can keep their current insurance is comparable to the faux controversy I recently discussed over whether people can keep the same doctor they now have. The real point in these arguments is over whether people who are happy with their coverage will continue to have the same type of insurance care and medical coverage (with added protections they do not have now).
See? It’s a “faux controversy” that Obama lied out his posterior. People are getting better coverage!!!!!! (with higher premiums and deductibles). I’m sure every young man is thrilled to be paying for maternity coverage, free birth control pills, and pap smears. Then’s this fun new talking point
Republicans have been doing everything possible to avoid real discussion of health care reform. They are sometimes aided by journalists who do not understand the complexity of health care policy, and who want to report a scandal when none exists. Recent misleading media reports on people being “booted†from their health care plan is encouraging Republicans to make a lot of nonsense noise leading Greg Sargent to conclude, correctly, that normal debate about Obamacare is impossible. He wrote, “the GOP outrage about Americans supposedly “losing†coverage is largely just more of the same old misdirection. It’s a subset of a larger Republican refusal to have an actual debate about the law’s tradeoffs — one in which the law’s benefits for millions of Americans are also reckoned with in a serious way.â€
Oh, why oh why won’t we have a real debate. Because millions losing the plans they liked and could afford is meaningless. And possibly losing the doctor they liked, because the networks for Obamacare are severely restricted. And millions are being moved from insurance plans to Medicaid. Jonah Goldberg destroys this meme. And Democrats knew that millions would lose their insurance. Then it gets funnier
As many others have, I recently received a letter from my insurance carrier that my current policy will not be available as it does not meet the requirements under the Affordable Care Act. However, I was also offered another policy by the same company. When I went to check on line I found that they were also offering several other plans. I never had this choice before.
Funny, one of Obama’s cheerleaders was dropped. Hey, Ron, didn’t Obama tell you that you could keep your plan? I love the part where there are now “choices!” for him. Because there were never choices before. The spin from liberals is amazing, but, it’s nothing we shouldn’t have expected, as they attempt to change the dynamics of the lies from Obama, which were echoed by his cheerleaders
(Politico) If you like your existing insurance, you can keep it. Shopping for a plan would be as easy as buying a plane ticket on Expedia. Annual premiums would drop by $2,500 for the typical family.
The simplicity of those messages are now running up against the reality of implementing the most far-reaching health care overhaul in 50 years.
It was a lie. There is no equivocation.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Obama’s “Annoyed” And “Agitated” Over Healthcare.fail Issues »
Warmists really do not like when people disagree with their cult. Which is funny, when you consider they say they’re into science and education and.treating people with respect. In practice, they are more like the Taliban. Little fascists
(UT San Diego) I was terribly disappointed with the U-T’s pair of interviews on climate change Oct. 24 (Op-ed). It is absurd that the U-T had provided a microphone for fossil fuel industry shills in an editorial interview. The Heartland Institute is of course a front for the fossil fuel companies. The so-called scientific report it is touting is not peer-reviewed — just another lie. All have taken lots of dollars from the oil, gas and coal companies for their efforts. (WT-someone should ask the writer if she has given up all fossil fueled travel)
And how can the U-T be surprised that there’s a “public disconnect†on climate change when media outlets like the U-T print rubbish from climate deniers in the pay of the fossil fuel companies, placing them on equal footing with respected climate scientists from our own Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an international leader on climate research?
This is not journalism, and future generations will look back and know that media outlets were part of the reason climate change was not addressed when there was still time to avert most of the impacts.
Masada Disenhouse
Hilariously, on the same page which are letters to the paper, there are several more that say providing both sides is great, that Warmists are full of it, and that the “95%” notion is opinion, not science.
…is lots of horrible Bad Weather creating concrete, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with an exclusive interview with a Benghazi whistle-blower.
Read: If All You See… »
As always, I’ll start with the notion of “I’ll believe it when it happens”. It will happen at some point, most likely within the next 100-200 years, based on the history of the Holocene
(BBC) It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
This could mean a return to those conditions. It could mean a return to the conditions of the mid 20th century, which had media and science types worried about a return to another ice age. I seriously doubt the Earth is headed into another ice age any time soon.
Of course, if the Earth does go into a little dip (like the 40’s-70’s) or one like the cool periods throughout the Holocene, Warmists will blame it on Mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
Read: Scientist Worries About Return To Little Ice Age Type Conditions »
I’m a little late to this party, however, this information still needs to be spread far and wide. Kudos to Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye at NBC News for putting this story out. I’m sure they’re catching enormous amounts of Typical Liberal Abuse for daring to expose the truth
Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation†letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.â€
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,†meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent†of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.â€
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Now, some Lefties, like Jay Carney, will quibble, equivocate, and spin in order to blow off the notion that Obama said you could keep your plan if you like it. Remember when Obama said that “words matter“?
Let’s not forget that the people losing coverage now are those in the individual and small business market. Big businesses have a better grandfathering, but won’t be immune. If they want to make a change, the whole plan will get blow’d up.
More: Think Progress blow by “lapdog” status and ends up in, if you’ll forgive the crudeity, $10 Meth whore blowjob land, having completely missed what Obama said time and time again.
Read: President “You Can Keep Your Plan” Knew You Couldn’t Keep Your Plan »
If anyone thought the lawsuits would end with Roberts court decision, forget that notion. First, Roberts essentially punted till people were nailed with the tax/fee for failing to obtain health insurance. Second, you have ones like this
(Alabama.com) EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a new lawsuit Monday, Oct. 28, in federal court against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other federal agencies seeking to stop the government from imposing the HHS contraception mandate, which it says is unconstitutional.
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has joined EWTN as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. “I am proud to stand with EWTN to oppose this unconscionable mandate,” Strange said. “The freedom of religion, and to believe as one sees fit, is our ‘first freedom’ under the United States Constitution. The people of Alabama have recognized the importance of this freedom and have enshrined it in their Constitution as well. Alabama law does not allow anyone to be forced to offer a product that is against his or her religious beliefs or conscience.â€
EWTN had previously filed a lawsuit, but one judge dismissed it. EWTN says they will continue to fight this violation of the 1st Amendment and their consciences.
“The revised rules, published by the government in July, have done nothing to address the serious issues of conscience and religious freedom that EWTN has been raising since the mandate was first published last year. The government has decided that EWTN is apparently not religious enough to be exempt from the rule. It has still placed us in a situation where we are forced to offer contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as part of our employee health plan or to offer our employees and their families no insurance at all. Neither of these options is acceptable. The mission of EWTN is not negotiable.â€
There are also lawsuits rolling through challenging the ability of the Federal government to give credits to those enrolled through the federal exchange, which the law explicitly did not allow. Only those enrolled through state exchanges are eligible.
There could also be lawsuits for Obamacare destroying contract law.
Read: Alabama, Global Catholic Network File Lawsuit Against “Affordable” Care Act »
…are horrid plastic cups which will cause the earth to warm 9 degrees sometime in the future, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, who wonders if you’re ready for the mileage tax.
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.
