…is an ocean that is rising up and requires barriers to stop it, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Maggie’s Notebook, with a post on remember 9/11.
BTW, the background looks like it might be Manasquan, NJ, where I grew up and spent many a day surfing at this exact beach.
Read: If All You See… »
Today marks the 12th anniversary of that dark day, when Islamic jihadis killed 2,996 of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones. Last year, the USA Today is wondered if 9/11 is becoming just another day, similar to Pearl Harbor Day. Based on the tiny coverage by major news outlets, which feature tiny stories on their front pages, if at all, it just might be. The NY Times’ article is about “taking stock” of the years of war, you know, after we were attacked. And spends little time discussing the attacks. The big editorial is about “The Race To Improve Global Health“. The Washington Post isn’t much better. Nor CBS and NBC. ABC does feature a big graphic at the top. Good for them. LA Times? Tiny.
Those blogging (from the feedreader at this time of the morning)
BlogmocracyWhy should we never forget? Things like this
Read: Never Forget. Never Surrender (Will Remain At Top For The Day) »
The Arctic has been doing very well this year, thank you very much, with big growth, 60% in one year, and being the same thinkness as it was back in 1940. There’s been no warming for 8 years in the Arctic. But, hey, the Warmists predicted this, right? Right?
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend’s Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.
Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it’s also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we’re not there yet.
Does Super Warmist Nuccitelli think that the Arctic is going to all of a sudden melt-down? Here’s where it gets funny
And while this year’s minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year’s, that’s not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,
“Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”
Which is strange, because most have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free this year (see Steven Goddard for a list of these prognostications), and there are non-stop complaints that the melting Arctic will kill all the polar bears (who are also doing quite well) and raise sea levels quite a bit (which is idiotic since the Arctic ice is free floating, but, hey, it’s not like Warmists practice science in the first place).
The rest of the article attempts to position that this is completely in line with “climate change”, which is all your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using hair spray. And that Warmists are really, really unhappy that any news source would dare to print things that do not fit the Narrative Of Climate Change.
Read: Warmists Claim They Predicted There Would Be More Arctic Ice This Year »
Trackback URL
I was eminently impressed that the speech actually started on time. I was unimpressed that he decided to make his plea from the same spot in which Joe Biden proclaimed that passing Obamacare was a “big f’ing deal“. Trotting down the red carpet to discuss potential military action and a serious international issue just doesn’t work. He started out well, though, making an impassioned plea to Do Something based on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.
And the 110,000 killed by other methods apparently are meaningless.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.
Why didn’t we act the first time they were used? Most of the early part of the speech was laying out how chemical weapons are Bad, something I think we can all agree with, and he’s worried that the war could spread and they could be used. Something that hasn’t happened. But, this was all a moral plea. Which wasn’t actually all that bad, and delivered in a more presidential tone than Obama usually uses. Then, we ran off the tracks
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Seriously? Whining about President Bush? Last time I checked, he obtained Congressional and UN approval for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Last time I checked, 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan.
…and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.
Adding campaign material in the speech was a Bad Idea. Especially since he’s been failing at the economy for over 4 years.
Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons.
Funny, Obama forgot to mention Libya and Egypt, the first being a completely failed state overrun in the eastern part by Islamists after using force. And Egypt moved towards an Islamist government after Obama pushed Mubarak out the door, forcing the military to knock the Muslim Brotherhood out and take over. Where was Mr. Obama and his “responsibility”?
Over the last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
Strange, because we did that to Saddam for over a decade, with resolution after resolution passed in the UN and Bill Clinton signing the Iraqi Liberation Act. We gave him one last chance with Resolution 1441. Does this means Obama now supports, retroactively, the use of force against Saddam? He sure made the case retroactively. Let’s back up the speech for a second
But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.
Ignoring the fact that we’re a Republic, not a democracy, a distinction a good chunk of the electorate wouldn’t understand, he stated unequivocally that Syria has no other meaning at this time but a moral one. There are no threats to the U.S.
This was Obama’s time to shine, to lead, to make his case. Despite Republican ambivalence towards Obama, I think most on the Right want to support the elected president when it comes to foreign adventures and policy, even after the way Democrats treated George W. Bush for 8 years, never letting politics “stop at the waters edge”. Obama did not seem to move the needle, and I doubt that the polls will change much if at all.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Obama Makes Impassioned Plea For Doing Something In Syria Despite No Direct U.S. Security Threat »
Alarmists being alarmist
(Climate Central) Higher temperatures, drastic changes in rainfall, lower productivity, more blight and disease − these are just some of the expected consequences of climate change in Brazil if the projections of 345 scientists who make up the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change (PBMC) prove true.
They predict that if present trends in greenhouse gas emissions continue, average temperatures in Brazil will be 3º-6ºC higher by 2100 than they were at the end of the 20th century.
Nice prognostication.
(BBC) A quarter of the (Brazil’s) foreign trade flows through Santos.
But in the past few weeks, this vital route has been clogged up as a result of the record amount of grain on its way to the port.
Soybean and corn harvests here have reached all-time highs this year and Brazil looks set to become the world’s top exporter of soybean.
(Agrimony) Brazil’s sugar exports are to soar above 29m tonnes, easily setting a record, US farm officials said, backing expectations of a bumper cane harvest despite poor conditions in the north east.
Well, that’s strange. Of course, the Warmists are going with their typical prognostications of happening in 2100, when no one will remember. This is not science.
Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” Could Cause Crop Decline In Brazil »
…is an ocean that used to only come up to the top of the feet, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post noting that Al Gore has a serious case of butthurt.
Read: If All You See… »
Alternate title: Vlad PWNS Barack. Somehow, I don’t think Vladimir Putin will be particularly please when Obama attempts to take credit for this plan. Which we know Obama will attempt, probably during his address tonight
(Fox News) Syria’s foreign minister said Tuesday his government has accepted a Russian proposal to turn over control of its chemical weapons, potentially opening the door to defusing a stand-off with the United States as President Obama indicates he’s willing to give the “diplomatic track” a try.
According to the Associated Press, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with the Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly agreed to the Russian initiative to “derail the U.S. aggression.” (snip)
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is now working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, which will be presented shortly.
Certainly, Russia has vastly more influence over Syria than the United States, particularly with The Gang Who Can’t Shoot Straight in charge here in the US. That said, this will be a big embarrassment for Team Obama if Putin rides in to save Obama from the box Obama put himself in, and highlight just how inept and unprepared he and his team are.
The Memeorandum pull for this issue is from The Washington Post
“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially,†Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public support for a military strike. “We’re going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are.â€
I get the feeling that neither Putin nor Assad could give a rat’s posterior what Obama thinks, though they’re probably happy that Obama’s standing, and to some degree the United States’, are reduced on the world stage.
Oh, and then Putin when and lassoed a T Rex, broke it, and is riding it around the streets of Moscow.
Quick update: Talking Points Memo notes that Team Obama is already taking credit. If you’ve followed TPM over the years, you can see the very skeptical note in the writing.
(photo of T-Rex originally came from bressane.com.)
Read: Assad Said To Accept Russian Plan To Turn Over Chemical Weapons »
Has anyone noticed the Old Media making a big deal out of these pacts? No? That’s weird
(Grist) Barack Obama is walking the climate-change talk — all around the world. Or at least endorsing climate-change pacts.
More like that latter part, since no one has a larger “carbon footprint” than Mr. Obama. Heck, his footprint just going to play golf every year, what with all the vehicles in the motorcade, is probably larger than the average American’s “carbon footprint”.
A commitment that Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping made during private meetings in June to reduce climate-changing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, evolved on Friday into a formal agreement between the two nations. From The Washington Post:
The United States and China announced Friday they would seek to eliminate some of the world’s most potent greenhouse gases through the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the landmark treaty that successfully phased out ozone-depleting substances decades ago.
Humorously, this was announced at the G20 in St. Petersburg, Russia, without noting all the “carbon pollution” from flying halfway around the world on fossil fueled planes, which brought all the fossil fueled vehicles for use by these “leaders”.
And in news that’s so closely related you could be forgiven for thinking it’s exactly the same story, all of the countries at the G20 summit, including the U.S., reached a broader agreement to curb emissions of HFCs. From Reuters:
The White House cited the agreement to cooperate on phasing down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and some industrial equipment, as one of the “most significant agreements†of the summit.
Do you know what this means? That’s right, your costs go up. And people in 3rd world nations will no longer be able to obtain the benefits from inexpensive refrigeration and air conditioning.
Meanwhile, half a world away from the G20 meeting in Russia, some encouraging news emerged from a summit of Pacific Ocean island states — some of which are at risk of sinking beneath rising seas. From Agence France-Presse:
A new Pacific regional pact calling for aggressive action to combat climate change has achieved a “major accomplishment†by gaining US support, officials said Sunday.
The Majuro Declaration, endorsed by the 15-nation Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) at their summit last week, contains specific pledges on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The US has offered $24 million over 5 years for projects in the islands, and has signed on to the Declaration, despite the sea rise being miniscule. Oh, and the Declaration calls for cutting out all CO2 output. So everyone needs to stop breathing.
Read: Man With Largest Carbon Footprint In World Signs On To Three Climate Pacts »
One really has to wonder what the strategy from Team Obama is. They’ve sent UN Ambassador Samantha Power to talk to…the ultra far left Center For American Progress. They’re sending, outrageously, Susan “It’s The Video” Rice to Capital Hill to argue for strikes on September 11th. Sec Of State Kerry makes comments like Syria facing “unbelievably small” consequences, which Obama walks back. Obama plays multiple rounds of golf. Obama makes a statement on a Saturday afternoon, being 35 minutes late for his own presser (which seemed to coincide with halftime for many college football games). They don’t bother talking to rank and file Republicans. They probably aren’t talking to many rank and file Dems, either. The messaging has been completely muddled and makes Obama look very weak. It’s no wonder public support is dropping like a stone
(Wall Street Journal) President Barack Obama’s push for Congress to authorize military action in Syria faces headwinds from an American public that increasingly is wary of overseas entanglements and doubtful that an attack would benefit the U.S.
In a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, just 33% of those polled said Congress should approve Mr. Obama’s request to attack Syria, while less than a quarter thinks military action is in the national interest.
More daunting for the president is that support for U.S. involvement is declining as the political negotiations over a potential strike play out.
At the end of August, an NBC News poll found that half of Americans backed a limited set of airstrikes to destroy Syrian military units in response to an alleged government-directed gas attack that killed more than 1,400 civilians. In less than two weeks since then, support for a limited attack dropped to 44%, the new poll found.
“As the public hears more information, they are coming down on the side of ‘don’t do it,’ ” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the survey with Democratic pollsters Fred Yang and Peter Hart.
That support will most likely drop further after Obama’s primetime speech tonight. Support from both Republicans and Independents has dropped, while from Democrats it has ticked up slightly. I guess they like the notion of “humanitarian” strikes which do nothing (except perhaps kill scores of human shields, seeing that Assad is surrounding his forces with civilians), are super limited, won’t solve anything, and have no bearing on U.S. security.
It’s no wonder Obama has jumped on the notion of Syria avoiding those “unbelievably small” consequences if they give up their chemical weapons, thus avoiding the embarrassment of losing a vote in both or either the House and Senate. Obama has shown that even after 4+ years on the job he is incompetent and not ready for that 3am phone call.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Obviously, The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne takes some swipes at the GOP for failing to be super enthusiastic for whatever-the-hell Obama’s Syria policy is (beyond throwing a few bombs and missiles): that’s expected. By throwing a vote to congress Obama was creating a situation where the GOP could be assaulted no matter what.
Then we get to
They will not prevail, however, unless Obama makes an unabashedly moral case on Tuesday explaining why things are different than they were a few months ago while laying out a practical strategy beyond the strikes. He must do something very difficult: show that his approach could succeed, over time, in replacing Assad with a new government without enmeshing the United States in a land conflict involving troops on the ground.
“They” being the GOP and Dem leaders who want to give Obama Congressional authorization. But, notice that Dionne puts this in squarely moral terms. There’s no national security motive, except in terms of not making Obama look like the total jackass and SCOAMF we, and most world leaders, already know he is.
Notice his headline: Syria puts our system on trial (on the front page it is U.S. resolve on the line, in Congress). So, if we fail to give President McBombypants, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, authorization for a meaningless slap on the wrist, out whole system is apparently toast. And will supposedly turn America into a second class nation. I kid you not, that’s how he ends the piece.
Of course, the WP also has a story that 59% still oppose any strikes. Most can see that this isn’t about American interests or security except at the extreme margins, but about helping Obama dig himself out of the hole he dug. It’s Obama’s credibility, not America’s.
Read: EJ Dionne: Obama Needs To Lay Out A Moral Position For Syria »
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.