h/t el gato malo

h/t el gato malo

Another inconvenient truth for the climate movement. From Chris Morrison at dailyskeptic.org:

The dramatic, if largely unpublicised, recovery in Arctic sea ice is continuing into the New Year. Despite the contestable claims of the ‘hottest year ever’ (and even hotter in 2024), Arctic sea ice on January 8th stood at its highest level in 21 years. Last December, the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) revealed that sea ice recorded its third highest monthly gain in the modern 45-year record. According to the science blog No Tricks Zone, the reading up to January 8th has now far exceeded the average for the years 2011-2020. It also exceeds the average for the years 2001-2010, and points directly upwards with regard to the average for the years 1991-2000.

The graph below shows the scale of the recovery compared to all the years tracked in the modern satellite record.

Of course this is only about half a winter’s worth of data, and we must be careful not to follow alarmists down their chosen political path of cherry picking and warning of climate collapse on the basis of individual events. But as we have seen in recent Daily Sceptic articles, the current recovery in Arctic sea ice is a climate trend that can be taken back to around 2007. In a recent paper, the Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen provided data showing a fall in the sea ice between 1997 and 2007 but minimal losses in the 45-year record both before and after this period. The investigative journalist Tony Heller draws a four-year moving average to show a small recovery in the lowest ice extent in September from around 2012.  He also notes that 1979 was a recent high point, with lower ice levels in the 1970s going back to the 1950s.

Where does all this leave the alarmists promoting their insane collectivist Net Zero project? Stuck up a frozen creek without an ice pick, it might be suggested. In 2022, Sir David Attenborough told BBC viewers that the summer sea ice could all be gone within 12 years. Climate models fed with opinions and wishful thinking seem to have guided him in his lamentations rather than the actual data. But if the ice continues to roar back, it is likely that the sea ice scare will have to be retired, along with all the disappearing coral popping up in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef.

Continue reading

A classic strategy of losers is to agree with their opposition on principle and then seek a concession on some minor point. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares gets it – he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. More finely, he is ok with going along with it.

Speaking to a group of journalists in Britain the other day, he said the regulations forcing the manufacture of battery powered devices – EVs – into production (and onto dealer’s lots, there to sit) will “kill” the car industry. He was speaking of the British car industry – which is mostly owned by the Chinese now. But his observation applies generally. The regulatory apparat is out to kill vehicles that aren’t battery powered devices. But most people don’t want – or can’t afford – a battery powered device This is how most people are to be forced out of vehicles. Which is how electric vehicles will kill the car industry.

Does Tavares object? Not really. He’d just like for the killing be done on a less hurried schedule.

“I think the fact that they’re imposing a ramp-up of [EV sales] makes sense,” he said. “The problem is the magnitude and the positioning of the ZEV mandate vis-à-vis the natural demand of the market.” 

Italics added.

This is Mitt Romney Republicanism. Agree with your enemies – and hope that’ll make ’em like you better.

But how does it “make sense” to agree with the people who want to force everyone to drive a battery powered device that most people don’t want because most people like being able to just drive wherever they like, spur of the moment, without having to plan around whether their device has enough charge to get them there? When even if they don’t object to being leashed, they can’t afford to buy the leash?

Continue reading

Antony Blinken has risen several levels above his level of incompetence, which is not uncommon in Washington. From Patrick Lawrence at scheerpost.com:

Antony Blinken is now in China for his second such journey as secretary of state and his third encounter with senior Chinese officials: This is our news as April marches toward May. I have to say, it is a stranger state of affairs than I can figure when the State Department and the media that clerk for it tell us in advance that America’s top diplomat is going to fail to get anything done as he sets out for the People’s Republic.

“I want to make clear that we are realistic and clear-eyed about the prospects of breakthroughs on any of these issues,” an unnamed State Department official said when briefing reporters last week on Blinken’s agenda. This is how State warns in advance that the secretary will be wasting his time and our money during his encounters in Shanghai and Beijing.

What is this if not an admission of our secretary of state’s diplomatic impotence? Or do I mean incompetence? Or both? This is the man, after all, who arrived in Israel five days after the events of last Oct. 7 to announce, “I come before you as a Jew.” Does this guy understand diplomacy or what?

The media followed the State Department’ lead, naturally, in advising us of the pointlessness of Blinken’s sojourn in China—this at both ends of the Pacific. CNBC: “Washington is realistic about its expectations on Blinken’s visit in resolving key issues.” Japan Times: “While crucial for keeping lines of communication open, the visit is unlikely to yield major breakthroughs.”

Matt Lee, the very able diplomatic correspondent at The Associated Press, got it righter than anyone in his April 22 report: The point of Blinken’s three days of talks with top Chinese officials, he reported, is to have three days of talks with top Chinese officials. “The mere fact that Blinken is making the trip might be seen by some as encouraging,” Lee wrote, “but ties between Washington and Beijing are tense and the rifts are growing wider.”

Continue reading

At a fairly low level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the gas reaches it’s saturation point in terms of its effect on the climate. In other, more CO2 produces no additional climate effects. From Frank Bergman at slaynews.com:

A bombshell new peer-reviewed study has provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”

Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.

However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.

This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki et al. summarize their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO₂ does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.”

Current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the scientists state that past 400 ppm, “the CO₂ concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature.”

Continue reading

Further proof that Biden is Israel’s bitch. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

The message that Israel has been consistently getting from Washington from October 7 onward is, do whatever you like. Commit whatever crimes you want to commit. Our support is unconditional and there will be no consequences for any of your actions, ever.

The Biden administration has reportedly canned its plans to issue sanctions on an extremist IDF unit for human rights violations in the occupied West Bank, following backlash from Israel and its high-powered supporters within the US government.

Axios reports:

The State Department has put on hold its intention to impose sanctions on the Israel Defense Forces “Netzah Yehuda” battalion for human rights violations in the occupied West Bank and is reviewing the issue in light of information Israel provided in recent days, U.S. sources familiar with the issue said.

Why it matters: The review is part of a consultation process outlined in an agreement between the U.S. and Israel. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also been under extensive pressure from the Israeli government, members of Congress and some senior Biden administration officials to reconsider the possible sanctions.

The big picture: The Biden administration had intended to withhold U.S. military aid and training from the Netzah Yehuda battalion — an unprecedented move in the history of relations between the countries.

-Story gets out that Blinken is ignoring Israeli human rights abuses
-PR story appears that Biden admin is going to do something
-Israel publicly acts outraged that laws may apply to them
-Biden admin quietly decides to do nothing

What a perfect summary of this admin pic.twitter.com/8QjM2v9NvD

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) April 26, 2024

As Dr Assal Rad has highlighted on Twitter, this decision follows a sequence of events in which ProPublica revealed that Secretary of State Antony Blinken was ignoring his own State Department’s recommendation to sanction Israeli military units that have been credibly accused of human rights abuses like rape and torture, after which Blinken announced that he was preparing to issue sanctions after all. This announcement was met with outrage from Israel and its apologists, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu penning a furious screed calling the planned sanctions “the height of absurdity and a moral low”. Those planned sanctions are now canceled.

Continue reading

As with so many contemporary issues, the narrative was set up and those who set it up would tolerate no questions. From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

(Originally published January 18, 2021.)

Aside from a breathless stream of headlines and a few random inputs, I haven’t seen many facts regarding the events of January 6^th. Circumstances made things that way for me, and now I’m glad they did, because it set me up for the really important issue: Am I allowed to ask questions about this, or am I not?

Bear in mind that I haven’t voted for or otherwise championed Mr. Trump. (Nor did I support his opponents.) More than that, I really want to know the answers to these questions. Especially given the fallout from January 6^th, honest answers to these questions matter a great deal.

So, I’m going to stick my neck out and ask questions about this event that seem pertinent.

Question #1: What was the actual time line?

As I was driving on the 6^th, I flipped on the radio and heard Mr. Trump speaking. I was aware that there was going to be a rally in the capitol, and so I listened for a minute or so, just enough to get the tone of it; a rally on the same day electoral votes were counted concerned me.

What I actually heard from Mr. Trump, however, was less than his strongest, and included something like, “I know you’re going to go down there…” combined with “patriotically and peacefully.” Hearing him mention “peacefully” comforted me. (Plus the fact that American conservatives take pride in being peaceful and courteous.)

And so I was rather shocked, not many minutes later, when a friend called and said something about the capitol. I responded along the lines of, “it sounds harmless enough”… whereupon I learned that protesters were already inside the building.

Continue reading

It must be 9D chess. From Pedro L. Gonzales at readcontra.com:

Mohammad Azuddin / Quarta Design

It’s been clear for a long time that, despite all the populist proclamations, Donald Trump’s view on aid for Ukraine aligns with the establishment position: the cash must flow, one way or another. That’s not what his supporters want to hear, but after this weekend, there’s no evading it.

On Saturday, the House passed a massive aid package, shepherded against the opposition by Speaker Mike Johnson with House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. It had the support of all Democrats but just less than half of Republicans and includes billions of dollars in “economic assistance” for Ukraine in the form of “forgivable loans.” That is to say, it’s money that doesn’t have to be repaid. It’s a farce, and everyone knows it.

But here’s the key detail missing from all the right-wing outrage on Twitter now: Johnson collaborated with the Democrats in the House to ram through this package at Trump’s behest.

The “loan” was Trump’s idea, and Trump told Johnson to get behind it. That’s why Johnson, for now, acts like he is bulletproof amid calls from other Republicans for his defenestration. Johnson knows that the leader of the party is in his corner. Indeed, as demands for Johnson’s head rang out, Trump defended the speaker in an interview with radio host John Fredericks.

“I think he’s a very good person,” Trump said, and declined to criticize him over Ukraine funding.

That was a lifeline for Johnson.

Continue reading

There are a lot more headlines in the American press about student protestors than there are about what’s actually going on in Gaza. That’s not an accident. From Branko Marcetic at jacobin.com:

Backers of Israel’s war have lost the battle for hearts and minds, so they’ve ginned up a controversy over student protests — they want us talking about anything other than the genocide in Gaza.

To understand the current headline-dominating furor over the protests taking place on college campuses against the war in Gaza, think about the death toll of each. As of the time of writing, more than thirty-four thousand Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza, almost certainly a massive undercount. On US campuses, that figure is zero.

It’s this cosmically vast discrepancy in terms of “harm” and “safety” that more than anything explains the absurd and ongoing freakout over college students protesting the war on Gaza — one that would be laughable if it weren’t so menacing.

Columbia University administrators have been hauled before Congress and pressured to crack down on faculty and students over their speech. The Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt has called for the National Guard to be sicced on protesters at Columbia — one of several figures to do so, including several US senators — knowing full well that the last time that happened, at Kent State in 1970, four students were killed. Supporters of Israel’s war, including the Israeli government itself, have hysterically labeled the protests — overwhelmingly comprised of students sitting in place and talking, sometimes dancing, often featuring large numbers of Jewish students — “terrorism,” “pogroms,” “riots,” and “mobs” seeking to destroy the country and that have led Jews to flee its borders.

One particularly histrionic war supporter has claimed in the Times of Israel that what’s happening on campuses “is 1938,” meaning Kristallnacht, when Nazis rampaged through Jewish neighborhoods lynching people and destroying homes, places of worship, and businesses. The result has been a wave of repression on campuses, with universities calling local police to arrest and detain their own students and faculty, many of them Jewish, for the crime of physically being on their own schools’ campuses, ending in-person classes, and barring them from physically returning, to the point of even erecting plywood barricades.

Meanwhile, what has been happening over in Gaza during this same week, as student protesters were being vilified and arrested for trying to make Israel’s military campaign in the territory end?

Continue reading