The Weekend in Review

A weather front came through this weekend and hit Mrs. Crucis and me. She had congestion and sinus headaches, I just ached with a side order of sinus headache as well. Consequently, we didn’t do much, Church on Sunday, Sunday dinner out and then a retreat back home.

I hate Winter. Yeah, I know, it’s not Winter yet, still a bit over a month to go. That fact doesn’t make us feel any better.

Be that as it is, the weekend news is a bit sparse. A tornado hit Illinois yesterday, killing 6. The global warming idiots blame it on ‘climate change’ because a tornado occurred in November. They ignore the announcement from Colorado that the ski resorts are opening early this year due to the heavy, early season snowfalls.

***

One item from the weekend did catch my eye, a column and video by Charles Krauthammer. In the report, he contends that there is no difference between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party. He claims reports of civil war within the GOP is a liberal media myth. I wish it were.

For sake of argument, I will agree that the platform and political principles of the GOP and the Tea Party have many parallels. Many of the rank and file GOP are also Tea Party members. I disagree with Krauthammer’s statement that the parallels of the GOP and the Tea Party extend to the GOP establishment.

If his view was true, the recent unilateral debt limit increase would not have happened. Nor would the GOP establishment cave on the shutdown of last month. In those parallels were true, the GOP would have sponsored rallies across Washington to support their case. Some rallies did happen and some GOP pols attended. But—the establishment hid and did nothing.

So, no, I disagree with Krauthammer. The GOP establishment and the Tea Party do not agree. Krauthammer speaks as one of that establishment.

The view of many, including me, is that the GOP Washington establishment is nothing more than democrats lite. Instead of opposing the liberals, the dems and Obama at every point, the GOP establishment views that opposition as too difficult. It’s easier to cave than do anything. A pox on them!

***

I’ve stated before that I get a lot of emails, newsletters daily on news, politics and events. One headline newsletter had a poll at the bottom, a poll asking a single questions, “Is there any point to Republicans continuing to hold repeal votes on Obamacare?” You had to choose one of four responses.

  • Yes, it’s important the administration knows how divisive this still is
  • Yes, it keeps momentum going in case Republicans some day have the numbers to repeal it
  • Nope. Republicans lost this one, they should get over it
  • I could see trying to repeal specific parts, but not the whole law. That ship has sailed

The response to the poll was not as surprising as I thought. It mirrored my opinion and apparently a majority of others.

35% Yes, it’s important the administration knows how divisive this still is

 
53% Yes, it keeps momentum going in case Republicans some day have the numbers to repeal it

 
5% Nope. Republicans lost this one, they should get over it

 
8% I could see trying to repeal specific parts, but not the whole law. That ship has sailed

 

( 124784 votes )

Interesting, is it not? I wonder, as more and more people are affected, how this poll may change, will the second choice grow larger? Or, will the first choice, an upright middle-finger salute to Obama, as his personal favorability polls continue to fall, grow? Only time will tell.

***

Obamacare appears to be heading to the Supreme Court again. This time the issue is that it is unconstitutional because it is a tax bill and originated in the Senate, not the House. What Harry Reid did was to take a House bill about veterans, erase everything except the House number and dump Obamacare into it. Then in a Pelosi lead conference meeting, one where the ‘Pubs were excluded, approved the Senate Obamacare bill and sent it off for BOs signature.

That is unconstitutional say those who brought the suit. Here’s a brief report; some House ‘Pubs are supporting the suit. John Boehner and Eric Cantor aren’t with them.

Forty House Republicans side with Obamacare Origination Clause suit

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Constitution says revenue-raising bills must originate in the House, and since the bill that became Obamacare was written in the Senate, House Republicans say that’s a problem.

Led by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, 40 members of the House have signed onto a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that it violates the Origination Clause because it failed to originate in the correct house of Congress.

The lawsuit, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A federal judge sided in June with the Obama administration’s defense of the sweeping health-insurance law.

“Given that an Origination Clause challenge against a taxing bill of this magnitude has never before been mounted, it is imperative that this Court not sanction the lower court’s superficial analysis of the Origination Clause,” said the House Republicans’ “friend-of-the-court” brief filed Nov. 8.

Despite its round-one loss, the case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is gaining interest among Obamacare critics who see it as the last best chance to overturn the massive health-care program in the courts.

“This support from members of the House is especially significant because PLF’s lawsuit defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people,” said Paul J. Beard II, the foundation’s principal attorney on the case.

You can read more, here, at the website. I’ve heard of this suit but nothing that is recent. Now…if only we can trust Chief Justice Roberts. That is the real question.

More Global Non-warming news

Once again, there is news on the AlGore fraud front. This little piece from Bloomberg News is another refutation of the “shrinking Polar Ice Cap” myth.

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Season Posts Latest Start on Record

April 06, 2010, 1:52 PM EDT

By Alex Morales

April 6 (Bloomberg) — The extent of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March, the latest the annual melting season has begun in 31 years of satellite records, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering Sea and Barents Sea meant that the area of ocean covered by ice expanded through last month, the Boulder, Colorado-based center said today in a statement on its Web site. That’s two days later than in 1999, the previous latest start to a melting season since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

The article continues with the Bloomberg required spin attempting to make this new data irrelevant while pushing the Global Warming fraud. The truth is there is no man-made global warming, there never has been. Yes, there has been periods with the world climate warmed. One such period was around 2000 years ago. There has also been period of cooling. The Ice Ages are examples. The last period of cooling ended only 200 years ago. (Google Mini-Ice Age, 17th Century weather, Maunder Minimum.) Recent climate models, rejected by all the AGW promoters, indicate we may be entering another solar cycle that triggered the last mini-Ice Age.

Never forget the entire purpose of AGW is to increase state control over our lives, increase taxes and spread the liberal’s Marxist agenda. They could not care less about actual climate effects unless it supports their political goals.

By the way, have you noticed that Algore remains in hiding? He’s just canceled his next public appearance to swindle more money from his true-believers.

More Global Non-warming news

Once again, there is news on the AlGore fraud front. This little piece from Bloomberg News is another refutation of the “shrinking Polar Ice Cap” myth.

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Season Posts Latest Start on Record

April 06, 2010, 1:52 PM EDT

By Alex Morales

April 6 (Bloomberg) — The extent of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March, the latest the annual melting season has begun in 31 years of satellite records, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering Sea and Barents Sea meant that the area of ocean covered by ice expanded through last month, the Boulder, Colorado-based center said today in a statement on its Web site. That’s two days later than in 1999, the previous latest start to a melting season since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

The article continues with the Bloomberg required spin attempting to make this new data irrelevant while pushing the Global Warming fraud. The truth is there is no man-made global warming, there never has been. Yes, there has been periods with the world climate warmed. One such period was around 2000 years ago. There has also been period of cooling. The Ice Ages are examples. The last period of cooling ended only 200 years ago. (Google Mini-Ice Age, 17th Century weather, Maunder Minimum.) Recent climate models, rejected by all the AGW promoters, indicate we may be entering another solar cycle that triggered the last mini-Ice Age.

Never forget the entire purpose of AGW is to increase state control over our lives, increase taxes and spread the liberal’s Marxist agenda. They could not care less about actual climate effects unless it supports their political goals.

By the way, have you noticed that Algore remains in hiding? He’s just canceled his next public appearance to swindle more money from his true-believers.

What Glacier Shrinkage?

Remember the big stink a few years ago by the Global Warming frauds claiming that glaciers were melting so fast that they’d all be gone by 2035? Well, the truth is out. It’s not happening and never was happening. The information used by the IPCC was taken from a popular science magazine printed seven years earlier concerning an interview with an Indian scientist who admits he was speculating. No evidence. No peer review. Just a speculation from a single person who had no data to support his speculation.

The Times Online reported this new bit of information this weekend. (why is it always on a weekend?) Here is a portion of that report. You can find the entire article here.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

(Simon Fraser/Science Photo Library)

The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

Incompetence, lies and speculation. Is this the current scientific methodolgy that is now accepted by the scientific community?

I’m struck by the thought how Galileo was persecuted for heresy because his statements that the Earth circled the Sun ran counter to the established view that all spacial bodies circled the Earth. Galileo had observable fact to support his case. His accusers of heresy had none.

Yes, we’re returning to the age of the Luddite. Led by the uncaring to pursue a personal political agenda. Typical for liberals. Next, they’ll be telling us we can tax ‘n spend ourselves into prosperity.

Oh, wait! They already have.

What Glacier Shrinkage?

Remember the big stink a few years ago by the Global Warming frauds claiming that glaciers were melting so fast that they’d all be gone by 2035? Well, the truth is out. It’s not happening and never was happening. The information used by the IPCC was taken from a popular science magazine printed seven years earlier concerning an interview with an Indian scientist who admits he was speculating. No evidence. No peer review. Just a speculation from a single person who had no data to support his speculation.

The Times Online reported this new bit of information this weekend. (why is it always on a weekend?) Here is a portion of that report. You can find the entire article here.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

(Simon Fraser/Science Photo Library)

The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

Incompetence, lies and speculation. Is this the current scientific methodolgy that is now accepted by the scientific community?

I’m struck by the thought how Galileo was persecuted for heresy because his statements that the Earth circled the Sun ran counter to the established view that all spacial bodies circled the Earth. Galileo had observable fact to support his case. His accusers of heresy had none.

Yes, we’re returning to the age of the Luddite. Led by the uncaring to pursue a personal political agenda. Typical for liberals. Next, they’ll be telling us we can tax ‘n spend ourselves into prosperity.

Oh, wait! They already have.

Writer’s Block

I’ve run out of queued posts and I’m drawing a blank for new post. I could do the obligatory “Cold” post because it’s certainly cold. The lows for the last few days have been in the negative regions (Fahrenheit). We got another several inches (5?) of snow overnight on top of all the previous deposits since Christmas Eve. Tonight, the lows be be in the negative double digits and the forecasted high “may” reach zero but will likely be negative as well.

Here’s a photo taken on Christmas Eve.

Compare that with this one taken this morning. Yes, I know it’s not like the deep snow the east coast received, but it’s much above normal for the KC area. See, the usual winter climate for us is cold, but not a lot of snow. The plains are dry and most of the snow from the Colorado mountains gets dumped on eastern Colorado, western Kansas and Nebraska. By the time it reaches KC, we only get an inch or two that is gone in a few days. Not this time. The snow is not melting other than for some surface evaporation on the few sunny days we’ve had. No, it’s just getting deeper and deeper. The photo below that I took this morning and the beginning of the Crucis glacier. As I measured with a yard stick, it’s about 13″ deep on the average just off my deck. I haven’t checked the driveway yet.

I think I’ll just go hibernate for a while.

More proof that AGW is a hoax!

A study reported in Science Daily indicates that the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere hasn’t changed in the last 160 years. Really? If that’s the case, then how can the “dramatic increase” of carbon dioxide be melting the Arctic ice cap and glaciers around the world? Or, more likely, the ice caps and glaciers aren’t melting as reported. And, just to throw in this little bit, if the Arctic ice cap is melting, why is the Antarctic ice cap growing? Would AGW affect both? I guess those questions are just inconsequential. After all, if Algore says it, it must be true! **Snort!**

Following my post about NASA on the carbon dioxide absorption for California comes this tidbit from the Science Daily.

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies. (Credit: iStockphoto)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.