Claim: ‘the pause’ is caused by small volcanic eruptions

November 19, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Now that the “warmth is hiding in the deep ocean” explanation has been debunked, climate alarmists are grasping at other straws to something to explain the lack of global warming for the past almost-20 years. Anything other than “a natural cycle.” I’m not saying this reason is impossible, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Small volcanic eruptions could be slowing global warming

From the AGU: WASHINGTON, DC— Small volcanic eruptions might eject more of an atmosphere-cooling gas into Earth’s upper atmosphere than previously thought, potentially contributing to the recent slowdown in global warming, according to a new study.

bg volcanoScientists have long known that volcanoes can cool the atmosphere, mainly by means of sulfur dioxide gas that eruptions expel. Droplets of sulfuric acid that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can remain for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures. However, previous research had suggested that relatively minor eruptions—those in the lower half of a scale used to rate volcano “explosivity”—do not contribute much to this cooling phenomenon.

Now, new ground-, air- and satellite measurements show that small volcanic eruptions that occurred between 2000 and 2013 have deflected almost double the amount of solar radiation previously estimated…

View original 917 more words


TURLEY AGREES TO SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

November 18, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

This is a very interesting development. Turley is a leading liberal lawyer and a supporter of some form of national health care, but has also been a strong voice criticizing Obama’s unconstitutional usurpations. I still think seeking judicial refereeing of a political fight between the other two branches is a weak move, but I’ll be nonetheless interested to hear his arguments.

Originally posted on JONATHAN TURLEY:

800px-Capitol_Building_Full_ViewAs many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need…

View original 616 more words


Why an Iran nuclear deal probably won’t happen

November 17, 2014
c

Islamic Bomb

November 24th is the formal deadline for a “nuclear deal” between Iran and the group of nations, lead by the United States, that for some reason doesn’t want a government that sees its role as bringing about the Islamic “End Times” and destroying Israel to get its hands on nuclear weapons.

I know, I know. “Islamophobes.”

Anyway, the assumption has been that the Obama administration is desperate for a deal for several reasons: Obama himself wants his “Nixon to China” moment, something he can’t tout a a rare foreign policy success; the administration wants Iranian cooperation against the even more psycho ISIS and has decided that allowing Iran to get a bomb is the price it will have to pay — the agreement is then a sham cover for this; and perhaps that Obama and his national security team think that Iran having a nuclear weapon is unstoppable (they’ve even bragged about preventing Israel from doing something about it), but that the problem can be managed.

But Michael Ledeen, a sharp observer of the Iranian regime for many years, doesn’t think a deal will happen. He offers several reasons, but here are the two I think most salient:

–On the other hand, we also know that Khamenei does NOT want a deal with the Great Satan, and he has no interest in securing Obama’s legend. He is sick, he may well believe that he has limited time left on this earth, and he doesn’t want his legacy to read: he came to terms with Satan;

–So why would Khamenei make a deal? Answer: he’d make one that plainly humiliated the United States. And what does that look like? Answer: sanctions get nullified, he keeps his nuclear program, and Obama doesn’t get a visa to Iran;…

But he won’t sign, because…

Sanctions are crumbling anyway, and he’s got his nuclear program running along. Nothing happens when he tells the UN inspectors to go away without conducting their inspections. And he doesn’t think Obama will ever do anything seriously mean to him or his country.

I agree; Khamenei and his allies allies are getting everything they want, so what incentive does he have to give up on a project that’s been their dream since Khomeini seized power? Sanctions? Bah. They only hurt the common people, and Khamenei couldn’t care less about them. Besides, the mullahs are doing Allah’s Will. And there is absolutely no chance Barack Obama would ever try to use force to enforce them or stop the program, so… Why not just string us along until he can, again, leave us with egg dripping down our national face? They’ll get us to give them everything, then Tehran will renege at the last second and dare us to do something about it. After testing a bomb to prove their point.

Every president since Reagan has thought he could reach a grand bargain with Iran, but Iran has seen itself as being at war with us since 1979. We’ve only fitfully acknowledged that, even when they’ve been killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and launching terror attacks worldwide.

Unless we open our eyes, they’re going to keep playing us for suckers until that lovely bomb is finally in their hands.


Lingering OKBOMB Questions

November 17, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

The 20th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing is coming up next year, and Mr. Schindler takes a look at some interesting unanswered questions, including wondering why the FBI and the DoJ seemingly stonewall any attempt at further investigation.

Originally posted on The XX Committee:

One of the more curious aspects of our postmodern information age is how stories that are actually known — meaning they have already been reported and can easily be found online — nevertheless fail to develop traction in the public consciousness, until sometimes they do, without apparent warning.

A classic case is the recent blow-up of Bill Cosby’s public reputation. Although allegations of rape against the actor-comedian, by more than a dozen women, have been reported for over a decade, including a 2006 out-of-court settlement, it was only recently — specifically last month, when comedian Hannibal Burress stated matter-of-factly of “America’s Dad”: “Yeah, but you’re a rapist” — that the story finally got legs. Suddenly, it has become a sensation, not helped by Cosby’s ham-handed efforts at online reputation management and his bizarre on-air silence about the allegations. It’s difficult to see how Cosby’s reputation can recover from this…

View original 1,847 more words


Brit Hume reduces progressivism to its essence in 30 seconds

November 16, 2014

Hume here is talking about Obamacare and the admissions by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that deception played a key role in its passage — indeed, that deception was essential. But it isn’t just Obamacare; this attitude of patronizing condescension and even contempt (1) for the average American underlies all progressivism, and thus the governing assumptions of the Democratic Party.

Here’s Brit:

via The Right Scoop

Footnote:
(1) They’ll deny it hotly, of course, but that’s because the truth hurts.


New term: ‘Grubering’ and how it applies to Climate Alarmism

November 16, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Very apt: What Dr. Gruber and his allies did to sell healthcare is just like what Al Gore, Michael Mann, Paul Krugman, and other climate alarmists do to sell the global warming/climate change/WE’RE ALL DOOMED!! scare. In their view, we’re too stupid to understand that (in their minds) the policies they advocate are for the best, so they have to lie to us to get us to agree.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

WUWT reader M. Paul writes: Sometimes a new word emerges that neatly encapsulates a set of complex ideas.  We have recently seen such a word enter the lexicon: Grubering.

For those of you who missed it, an MIT Professor named  Jonathan Gruber has been caught on video describing all the various ways that he helped the Obama Administration to deceive the public regarding the true nature of Obamacare.

grubering
People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”.  Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative.  The justification for Grubering  is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion.  Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics…

View original 356 more words


Why the Islamic State is Winning

November 15, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Some needed hard words from XX Committee. if we don’t get our heads on straight, we’re going to let these refugees from the 7th century win.

Originally posted on The XX Committee:

Today’s headlines bring word of some sort of ceasefire, or at least modus vivendi, between the Islamic State (*Da’ish) and Al-Qa’ida (AQ) in Syria, where the Salafi jihadists have been bitter enemies, fighting each other often more than the Assad regime which they both seek to overthrow. While it would be unwise to think this is more than a tactical allliance, any rapprochement between Da’ish and AQ is an important development that has worrisome implications for their mutual enemies.

This is particularly the case because the U.S.-led campaign to prevent Da’ish from taking over more of Syria and Iraq than the fanatical group already controls is going poorly, to be charitable. The belatedly named Operation INHERENT RESOLVE has been underway for over three months already and its accomplishments are few. Beyond some individually impressive airstrikes on Da’ish targets, there is less here than meets the eye, strategically speaking. In…

View original 1,926 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,753 other followers