The hateful left: Riots and “Thatcher death parties” celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s passing.
These were the same people that were lecturing the right about civility after the Tucson shootings in 2011. Now they applaud the death of a person whose main legacy is that she helped free millions from tyranny.
From a global warming advocate: Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.
As a result, scientists and policymakers draw on the past to predict the future. Until now, they have therefore placed much weight on the rapid temperature increases in the Eighties and Nineties. But for at least a decade, these have dramatically slowed, even as carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase. [emphasis mine]
Or as I like to say, every climate model proposed by every global warming scientist has been proven wrong. They all predicted the climate would warm in lockstep with the increase in CO2. It hasn’t.
This is not to say the climate hasn’t warmed in the past five centuries (though some of the data used in for the past 150 years is sadly suspect). What isn’t clear is why. It might be the rise in carbon dioxide. It might also simply be the lingering warming the Earth is experiencing as the last ice age ends. Or it might be because of the Sun.
The field of climate science is very complex, confusing, and in its infancy. We just don’t know yet, and anyone who says they do is not a good scientist.
R.I.P. Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013).
One of the giants of the 20th century. As she said in her final speech as Prime Minister in 1990,
» Read more
The article is a very detailed summary of the many problems caused by Obamacare, from increased unemployment to loss of healthcare insurance to higher premiums to higher debt. Everyone should read it. However, the most important question is laid out in the very first paragraph:
The biggest political problem faced by so-called “liberals” and so-called “progressives” in President Obama’s second term is how to prevent voters from holding them politically responsible as the public comes to realize how badly they were lied to during the first Obama term to win passage of Obamacare.
It is going to be the number one priority of all Democratic politicians and their allies in the mainstream press to somehow find a way to blame Republicans for Obamacare. The question will be whether they will succeed.
The scientists who attempted to re-invent Michael Mann’s hockey stick global warming graph and were caught fudging their data have essentially admitted that their data is worthless.
This is what they say in a FAQ they have added to their paper:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. [emphasis mine]
They are basically admitting that the data used to create the temperature rise of their hockey stick during the past 100 years is unreliable and therefore useless for scientific purposes. Which raises the question: Why did they publish it in the first place? See especially this analysis of this paper and the press’s reaction to it by climate scientists Roger Pielke.
Bad: North Korea says it has authorized plans for a nuclear strike against the United States.
But, while Pyongyang has successfully carried out test nuclear detonations, most experts think it is not yet capable of mounting a device on a ballistic missile capable of striking US bases or territory. Mounting tension in the region could however trigger incidents on the tense and heavily-militarised border between North and South Korea. There was no immediate American reaction to the North’s latest statement, but US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Pyongyang represented a “real and clear danger” to the United States and to its allies South Korea and Japan. [emphasis mine]
Right now North Korea almost certainly cannot hit the U.S. with an ICBM. However, South Korea and Japan are very very very exposed.
“You’d probably be dead anyway.”
Guess who said it.
Surprise, surprise! States dominated by conservatives are more likely to have lower unemployment, while liberally dominated states are more likely to have higher unemployment.
James Hansen is retiring from NASA and will dedicate his time to global warming activism.
All that is really changing is that Hansen will no longer work for the government. The activism has been going on for a very long time.
Also, it is interesting how this New York Times article seems very unaware of this fact, which makes all of Hansen’s global warming claims very suspect. Might the Times not want the public to know this annoying detail?
Does this make you feel safer, or more free? Since 2011 Homeland Security has been claiming that it has the authority to inspect private safety deposit boxes without warrants.
Are your indoor tomato plants probable cause for an armed raid?
Yes, if it was up to most police departments and governments today.
Pushback: A boycott of Colorado because of its new gun restrictions appears to building among hunters.
