The Next Clinton Presidency

Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, because that was pre-ordained, and the Party will make sure it happens, as it has throughout this primary season.  Given that, I’m glad Bernie ran and is staying in the fray until the convention.  Everyone saying he should drop out; is hurting the party; or is hurting Hillary can go to hell.

I also expect she will win the presidency, though I am far from certain.   Trump is putting out a populist message addressing jobs, infrastructure and trade agreements that plays directly into the the fears and expectations of desperate white working class people.  Of course it’s all bull shit, right from The Art of the Deal.   But if enough people fall for it, he has a chance to win.

I see the general election playing out one of two ways: either Trump wins a squeaky close election - by 1-2 % of the popular vote and a single swing state in the electoral college; or Hillary wins by a historic landslide - >15 % of the popular vote and 100 to 150 electoral votes.

People talk about her progressive credentials, but I see a corporatist neoliberal hawk.  These are things I will judge her presidency on —

Fracking

Support for alternative energy development

Wall street Regulation

TPP and other trade agreements

Minimum Wage

The Future of Social Security and Medicare

Universal Health Care

The Student Loan crisis and college costs in general

Citizens United and election finance in general

Relations with Native Americans and other minorities

Pipeline Issues [like Keystone XL] as they arise

Other environmental concerns vis-a-vis corporate concerns

Climate change vis-a-vis the political power of big oil

Tax policy

Future of the National Parks 

Eagerness to go to war, foreign policy aggressiveness in general 

Specifically, military involvement in the Middle East and regarding other Muslin nations.

U.S. attitude toward and treatment of Palestinians

Farming

Marginally arable land, rural golf courses, and millions of acres in the federal Conservation Reserve Program are being farmed.  Farmers are tearing down fences and structures and uprooting trees,  to be able to get in a few more rows of planting.  This is immediate dangerous to land and water, and unsustainable over time.    Read about it here.

The force pushing more land into production is the rise in crop prices: in the past five years corn prices tripled and those for soybeans doubled because of swelling worldwide demand, including demand for ethanol production. At the same time yields have spiked because of genetically engineered crops and improvements in farming technology, which are also allowing farmers to grow in previously inhospitable areas.

I just read somewhere yesterday that 60% of the corn grown in the U.S. is a recently developed hybrid that is toxic to corn root worm.  The high use rate is due to the resistance this hybrid offers, without requiring the use of pesticides.  This is part of the reason for the high yields mentioned in the quote above.  The downside is that the root worm - quite predictably - is developing resistance, and re-invading the corn fields. I can't find where I read about it, but you can read about it here.

Maybe my reptile brain is taking over and I'm getting needlessly alarmist.  But I'm connecting these dots with a global warming dot. Unsustainable farming practices, failure of pest-resistant hybrids, and a changing global temperature pattern could combine to cause some sort of massive systemic failure.

What chance do you see for a major world-wide food crisis in 5, 10, or 20 years?

I think the chances are quite good that the outcome will be really bad.

Global Warming Hoax Continues - Pt 4

One of the reasons AGW proponants are so successful with their hoax - really, nobody in politics, government or the MSM ever questions them, and denialists are universally scoffed at - is that they present data like what follows.  These are graphs of the  Combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies. (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)
 
This is the deviation of monthly temperatures, in degrees C, from a base line, taken as the global average of 1951 to 1980, which was a relatively stable period, as the graphs will reveal.  The data is from this table, linked at this NASA page. 

Here is the data for January, in blue, and July, in red, from 1880 until now.

Here is the data presented as a 13 year moving average.  Would it be hyperbolic to say the advance since the 1976 bottom is HYPERBOLIC?

Doesn't it look disturbingly like an Elliott Wave?  Anyway, now you can see why so many reasonable people get taken in by their claims.

.

Global Warming Hoax Continues - Pt 3

Used to was, 1998 had been the warmest year EVAH, so George Will and other AGW denialists could cheerily cherry-pick that year and say, "It was so much warmer then, it's cooler than that now.   Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

But them flip-floppers at NASA say it's not 1998 any more - It's 2005, by a slight fraction of a degree over 2009.   Well - what do you expect; they're part of the Gummint, and therefore pinko socialistical Librullz who can't be trusted.  And never mind they've been saying it since January, 2006.  Repeating a hoax doesn't make it true.  At least not for Librullz

Now here comes that infamous Keynsian, Paul Krugman, saying that 2010 is even hotter, as if he's a freaquin' expert.  Well, hell - when has HE ever been right about anything?  He posts this absolutely silly graph, when we all know that it snowed during the Winter, so global warming is either a Librull plot to kill the economy and steal our freedoms, or just so much hot air; and Al Gore (as a letter-writer to my local paper so lucidly pointed out when it snowed LAST Winter) "can go suck eggs."

Here is the aforementioned silly graph.  Krugman says the yellow line is 2005.

Yeah.  Like that's supposed to prove anything.  We all know how liars can figger!

And 2009, that 2nd hottest year - why, it was scarcely any hotter than 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007!  That's what them NASA people said.

So -- are we screwed, or what?

For Pt. 2, see here.
.

GIANT FLYING SQUID!

 I really had no idea that squid*  ( check out the pic at this link) were the antitheses of lemmings. 

Thousands of jumbo flying squid (Dosidicus gigas) or Humboldt squid, were found stranded on southern California beaches over the summer of 2002. The normal range of these squid, also known as Humboldt squid, is from Peru north to Baja California. However, warm water events such as El Niño can extend the range of these squid to Oregon.

But wait - - there's more!  This gonzo squidity didn't end after the Yr 2002 El Niño.  As ABC News reported, just this past summer there were close encounters of the tentacular kind in the normally placid waters off the coast of San Diego. (Be sure to watch the video at the ABC News link.)

Diver Shanda Magill became all too acquainted with the squid's powerful pull, she told the AP.

During a recent night dive, Magill had no warning when a large squid hit her from behind, grabbed her and dragged her sideways through the water. Both her light and her buoyancy hose were ripped away in the scuffle, but then the squid departed suddenly, leaving Magill disoriented and panicking in the water.


"I just kicked like crazy. The first thing you think of is 'Oh my gosh. I don't know if I'm going to survive this,'" she told the AP. But Magill doesn't seem to hold much animosity toward the creature that attacked her.

"If that squid wanted to hurt me, it would have," she said.

Also, in 2005, there was squiggly squid excitement!

Scientists aren't sure why the squid, which generally live in deep, tropical waters off Mexico and Central America, are swarming off the Southern California coast — but they are concerned.

In recent years, small numbers have been spotted from California to Sitka, Alaska — an alarming trend that scientists believe could be caused by anything from global warming to a shortage of food or a decline in the squid's natural predators.

In 2005, a similar invasion off San Diego delighted fisherman and, in 2002, thousands of jumbo flying squid washed up on the beaches here. That year, workers removed 12 tons of dead and dying squid.

The mystery of the squid encounters is unexplained.  Indeed - Who knows what motivates a ten tentacled mollusk?  Are they just lovable, playful creatures who want to be our friends?  Do they think we'd make nice pets?  Evidently they are not interested in having us for lunch.

Is it global warming causing a disturbance in or expanding their normal habitat?  Could overfishing of sharks, their natural predators have anything to do with it?

Whatever the answer, I'm deeply envious of Shanda Magill, who has actually been hugged by a squid!  Remember - they do not want to hurt you.

Hat tip to Space Squid.
____________________________
* Photo source.

Global Warming Hoax Continues - Pt 2*

If I had stuck with it a few days longer, back in the Spring, when I wrote this, I would have found that fool and scoundrel George Will's idiocy was debunked, right on the pages of WaPo.

More recently, it gets better:

If anyone tries to tell you that uncertainty about climate change is a reason for inaction, he’s either a fool or a scoundrel. Probably a bit of both.

           -- Mark Kleiman, with a H/T to Delong**

____________________________________________
Photo from: 
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/223478/____________________________________________
* Part 1.
** Who I should treat to a drink, should we ever happen to meet.
.

Global Warming Hoax Continues

Just when you thought it was safe to go back out onto the permafrost, Sarah Palin comes out with details of how global climate change has directly affected Alaska.

That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

Wha-a-a-a . . . ?!?  Oh, but then she goes on:

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real.

Facing an Inconvenient Reality

Global Warming, Climate Change, AGW - call it what you will. There are facts, there is fiction*, and there is denial.

And there are people working hard to get the truth out.

Are you paying attention?

Via Bouphonia

Oh, by the way, the alleged global cooling hysteria of the 70's, a la Will, is more of his B.S.
______________________________________
* and friction, which causes more heat.

Global Warming On Ice

Should anyone be surprised when George Will gets it totally wrong?

Here is the reality.

The most recent decade was the hottest ever.

Polar ice area is 9% less than a decade ago.

What else is there to say?