Friday, October 3, 2014

WILL CLIMATE WEEK EVER END?


Is it still climate week? Yes, it must be, since John Kerry, who pretending to be secretary of state, has said climate change is just as urgent as ISIS. Also ebola.
No word yet on whether all the trash from the weekend’s climate march has been picked up yet, nor whether Leo DiCaprio picked up the tab. But then there’s this inconvenient headline from the Los Angeles Times a few days back:
LAT Hed copyNaturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warmingin the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time.
So what low-down, Koch-funded climate skeptic produced this study? Um. . .
The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Not to worry, though. The Animal House of the climate campaign made sure that we don’t get carried away here. Cue the Kevin Bacon scene, played in this sequel by board-certified climatista Kevin Trenberth, saying “Stay calm! All is well!”
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable. The results may also reflect the fact that the northeast Pacific is an area of the globe where past studies have shown the “signal” of climate change is low relative to the “noise” of natural variability.
“There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change,” Trenberth said. But, he added, “this does not call into question the concept of global warming.”
Just one question: if the “quality of the data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable,” then remind me again why we’re supposed to treat Michael Mann’s Hockey Schtick (or any other temperature reconstruction) so reverentially? Oh I forgot—because 97 percent!

Thursday, October 2, 2014

WHAT’S IN THE KHORASAN NAME?


“The Khorasan Group.” It sounds like a consulting firm, or maybe an orgiastic cult. Actually, though, it’s the name applied to a terrorist outfit the Obama administration targeted for bombing in Syria earlier this week in attacks separate from those aimed at ISIS. But what kind of terrorist organization is the Khorasan Group and where does the name come from?
According to the reports I’ve read, the Khorasan Group is a subset of core al Qaeda. Its members were selected by al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan to move to Syria and plot terrorist attacks against the West from the safety of territory occupied by Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s official affiliate.
As for the name, Khorasan is an ancient region that included parts of Iran and Afghanistan.According to the Washington Post, it was established by the Sasanian dynasty, the last Iranian empire before the rise of Islam, at some point in the 3rd century. The name means “The Land of the Sun,” a reference to its eastern location.
Maybe Faulkner was right: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
But how did an al Qaeda cell get this odd, pre-Islamic name? Apparently not from al Qaeda or any other terrorist group operating in Syria. The Post reports:
Pieter van Ostaeyen, a historian and blogger who follows jihadist movements, writes in an e-mail that “in all of the official Jihadi accounts I follow(ed), the name never was mentioned.”
Even after the use of the phrase by U.S. officials, the Khorosan label still seemed obscure to many in Syria. The Post’s Loveday Morris said that most Islamist fighters she spoke to had never heard of any Khorasan group, and those that used the word used it to refer, more broadly, to fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than a specific group.
So who decided that there is a specific group called the Khorosan Group? The best guess seems to be that the Obama administration did:
“[The name] is clearly U.S.-originated,” van Ostaeyen said. . . .”It’s cute Pentagon is literally making up new group called ‘Khurasan’ when it’s just AQ AfPak/Iran guys. . . [Aaron] Zelin [of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy] tweeted after the strikes against the group were announced.”
Zelin added that “there have been no jihadis in Syria or [Jabhat al-Nusra] to use that name when referring to themselves; Some online jihadis have even characterized it as laughable.”
Why would the Obama administration want to come up with an obscure name for “AQ AfPak/Iran” terrorists? That’s an easy one.
Obama maintains that core al Qaeda has been decimated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus, it will hardly do for the administration to acknowledge that core al Qaeda in these two countries has sent operatives to Syria who are deep into plotting attacks on the U.S. homeland, such that U.S. air strikes are required.
Perhaps further investigation will reveal that the name Khorasan Group is not simply a device through which Team Obama hopes to sustain the fiction that it rendered core al Qaeda impotent. But right now, that looks like it might well be the best explanation for the name.
In any event, Obama’s reports of core al Qaeda’s demise now look like the national security equivalent of “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

‘A’ Is for Agitation in Jefferson County, Colorado

‘A’ Is for Agitation in Jefferson County, Colorado
Curriculum complaints are smoke; merit pay is the teachers’ union real target.
By Michelle Malkin

HOLDER TO LEAVE, BUT HIS STAIN WILL LINGER


There have been worse members of presidential cabinets than Eric Holder. John B. Floyd and Howell Cobb, both of James Buchanan’s cabinet, who apparently aided the South in the days before secession come to mind.
In my 40 plus years of observing presidencies, though, Holder has a strong claim on first place. His warped attempts to use the national law enforcement apparatus to remake America along leftist lines would have made his tenure an abomination even if it hadn’t been further stained by racism. But racially stained Holder’s tenure was, as Christian Adams reminds us:
[A]fter six years of Holder hugging Al Sharpton, stoking racial division in places like Florida and Ferguson, after suing police and fire departments to impose racial hiring requirements, after refusing to enforce election laws that protect white victims or require voter rolls to be cleaned, after launching harassing litigation against peaceful pro-life protesters, after incident after incident of dishonesty and contempt before Congress — after all this, it was clear to anyone with any intellectual honesty that this man had a vision of the law at odds with the nation’s traditions.
Why would it surprise anyone he behaved as he did? As I made clear in my book Injustice, he carried around a quote in his wallet for 40 years about race that, he explained to the Washington Post, indicated that he had common cause with the black criminal. That’s a fact. That’s who he is. . . .
Eric Holder was a radical progressive who used the power of the federal government to impose his progressivism on the United States. He loved big interventionist government that took sides based on your politics and your race. He was a menace to the rule of law.
Bad cabinet members come and go, but Eric Holder leaves behind a legacy that I believe will haunt the nation for decades. What is that legacy? Again I turn to Adams:
Holder’s tenure represents the beginnings of a post-Constitutional era, where the chief law enforcement officer of the United States serves to dismantle legal traditions. Holder is the first attorney general to whom law seemed to be an option, a suggestion on the way to a progressive future. Most folks, and most lawyers, who didn’t devote daily attention to him might not have noticed the ground shifting during his tenure. But shift it did, and very deliberately.
Law, like liberty, is a tenuous thing. Failing to understand the sources of domestic tranquility, the sources of your relatively good life, usually also means failing to recognize the threats to that pleasant tranquility. Holder used his time at Justice to do things that corrode the rule of law. Law and liberty are precious things, and Holder did enormous damage to both.
Even John B. Floyd and Howell Cobb probably did less damage.

Earth-Friendly Energy Is Anything But

Earth-Friendly Energy Is Anything But
Environmentalists worship solar energy and wind power as Earth-friendly answers to their ecological prayers. Tortoises, bats, butterflies, and bald eagles beg to differ.
Perhaps because solar panels and industrial wind farms lack emissions, they seem “clean.” Despite their pristine appearance, however, these “green” electricity sources hammer Mother Nature — often fatally.
Southern California’s Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.
Consider the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert. As Carolyn Lochhead wrote on September 7 in the San Francisco ChronicleIvanpah occupies 3,500 previously untouched federal acres. It features 300,000 mirrors that focus sunlight on three 40-story towers of power. Inside, 900-degree temperatures yield steam, propel turbines, and generate electricity for 140,000 homes.
Ivanpah’s environmental toll is stunning:
• BrightSource Energy, the project’s owner, could have rehabilitated a brownfield, an abandoned commercial site, or a decommissioned military base. Instead, BrightSource developed 5.5 square miles of virgin desert.
• Lochhead reports that “scientists now say desert soils contain vast stores of carbon that are unleashed by construction of solar facilities.”
• Tortoises native to that area became refugees once BrightSource relocated them en masse.
• Kit-fox dens were flattened during construction.
• Monarch butterflies and birds should avoid Ivanpah at all costs. Those who traverse its highly concentrated sunbeams often ignite. Center for Biological Diversity ecologist K. Shawn Smallwood told the California Energy Commission last July that Ivanpah will roast an estimated 28,380 birds annually.
This MacGillivray’s Warbler suffered fatal burns at the Ivanpah solar plant in October 2013. Photo: Associated Press/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion, including a $1.6 billion federal loan. For its next trick, BrightSource envisions a bigger installation near Joshua Tree National Park — within a migratory path for protected peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and some 100 other bird species.
Meanwhile, environmentalists call wind power as benign as a summer breeze. In fact, wind farms have become avian killing fields. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reports that “wind turbines may kill a half a million birds a year.” Wind blows away another 600,000 bats annually, primarily through lunghemorrhaging. While these “flying vampires” look scary, most are insectivores and vegetarians. Bats actually serve mankind by pollinating crops and devouring mosquitoes. Fewer bats mean more mosquitoes. Swell.
USF&WS explains also that “eagles appear to be particularly susceptible. Large numbers of golden eagles have been killed by wind turbines in the western states,” as have smaller numbers of bald eagles. Team Obama — which could not care less about America’s beautiful, majestic national symbol — almost neverprosecutes wind companies for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Even worse, Obama is granting wind-farm operators 30-year federal eagle-killing permits, to continue their mayhem — all in the name of “clean” energy.
Long before they are installed — which itself consumes open fields — windmills abuse the Earth.
To evaluate any energy technology, “we must remember that it’s a process, starting with mining the materials necessary for the machines,” Alex Epstein notes in his forthcoming Penguin bookThe Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Epstein observes that windmill manufacturing requires “hazardous substances like hydrofluoric acid in order to get usable rare earth elements.”
The Daily Mail’s Simon Parry toured Baotou, China, a source of neodymium, the main ingredient in wind turbines’ electromagnets. He discovered “a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill, and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.”
This toxic lake in Baotou, China, is filled with pollution from neodymium factories, which are crucial to wind-turbine production.
Parry added:
This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr. Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
Environmentalists should stop hallucinating about “sustainable” power sources that unleash puppies and rainbows at no cost to air, water, habitat, and wildlife. “Clean energy” hurts nature. Those who believe otherwise live in Fantasyland.
— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
http://www.nationalreview.com/energy-week/388892/earth-friendly-energy-anything-deroy-murdock

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Capitalism Is Clean(er)

Capitalism Is Clean(er) Red isn’t green.
 
Strange thing about Flood Wall Street, the financial-district protest that followed the People’s Climate March: Nobody had much to say about the climate — what they came to talk about wascapitalism . “Stop Capitalism,” “End Capitalism,” “Capitalism Kills,” the placards read. Kshama Sawant, the socialist Seattle city-council member who funds her crusade against capitalism by being married to a man withMicrosoft money , called for a “radical, militant” movement linking environmental concerns to such traditional socialist enterprises as heavy government intervention into targeted industries, including energy and transportation.
 
Question: What happened to the environment the last time people with radically anti-capitalist views had access to real power?
 
The fullest and most comprehensive attempts to impose socialism on a society happened in the twentieth century in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and like-minded enterprises. 
“Communism” is what socialists call socialism that they do not want to talk about, but in the interest of fairness I should emphasize that I do not believe that the USSR is what Ms. Sawant et al. have in mind when they talk about socialism. But the USSR wasn’t what the Russian revolutionaries had in mind, either, and it probably is not really what Lenin or even Stalin desired. Almost nobody sets out to impoverish, oppress, starve, and murder millions of people, but that is what happened, and that it happened is not a mere coincidence deriving from defects within Russian culture or Mao’s management style. It probably is not the case that the Russians failed socialism, but that socialism failed the Russians.
 
Under a system that imposed heavy government regimentation upon the economy, direct government ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy (and the commanded heights, too), a socialist vision of property, etc., the environmental results were nothing short of catastrophic. Setting aside the direct human costs of socialist environmental policy in the twentieth century — the famines, the deformations, the horrific birth defects — socialism was a disaster from the purely environmental point of view, too.
 
Consider the Aral Sea disaster, in which one of the world’s largest lakes was converted into a toxic desert, with the husks of ships still floating upon the sand dunes — not by accident, but as a matter of government policy, implemented not by the famous monster Stalin, but by Nikita Khrushchev, by comparison a reformer. Like our contemporary socialists, the Soviets of the Khrushchev era hoped to fundamentally transform the economy with a series of careful “investments” and infrastructure projects, in this case by turning a great deal of marginal land into a cotton-producing powerhouse that would substantially raise exports. Water headed for the Aral Sea was diverted in the service of this government infrastructure investment, and the seabed became a desert. But not just any desert: Salt and toxins that had drained into the sea turned the dust that remained into poison, which was blown by the winds across an area amounting to thousands and thousands of square miles. Most of the water diverted from the Aral was wasted, simply soaked up by desert land that would never grow anything, while the Aral’s connections with other bodies of water ensured that they became poisoned, too, many rendered sterile. There was localized climate change, the melting of glaciers, and more. Entire ecosystems were wiped out, and the human toll was horrifying.
 
There were many others. Chernobyl is a famous one, but others are, if anything, more terrifying. The famous “Door to Hell,” a gas fire lit — intentionally — by Soviet engineers, was intended to burn off some excess gas in a defective storage facility, with the assumption that the fire would burn itself out in a few months. That was before I was born — and it’s still burning . It’s not just the fire that gives this gaping hole in the Earth its name — it’s the smell of burning sulfur.
 
I could list many more, from China to East Germany and beyond. If you want to see what anti-capitalist environmental policy looks like, look up images from Semipalatinsk — though I cannot in good conscience recommend that you go through with it. Not if you ever want to sleep again.
 
I hear you already: “Fine, commies bad! Bad commies! We get it!” But consider another case, one that more closely resembles the vision of the world put forward by our so-called democratic socialists: state-run oil companies.
 
The contemporary Left is very friendly to the idea of state-run industries. Many of our contemporary progressives have suggested nationalizing banks and financial institutions, for example, while the government-run utility is still a thing that is with us, and nationalized health care is a longtime dream of that special breed of farsighted progressive with his eyes firmly fixed on 1944. Many progressives have enthusiastically greeted the idea of nationalizing oil companies: Representative Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) once threatened to nationalize oil companies in response to increased gasoline prices. Daily Koswriters have endorsed the idea; evenCleveland.com has got in on the action.
 
What do actual national oil companies look like?
 
We might consider the case of Chevron’s alleged environmental crimes in Ecuador, which the evidence suggests had nothing to do with Texaco (later acquired by Chevron) but were in fact perpetrated by Petroecuador, the state-run oil company, abetted by a series of Ecuadorian governments. In a particularly perverse twist, the American “human rights” lawyer suing Chevron over the case persuaded the government of Ecuador not to clean up Petroecuador sites — the more damage there was, the more could be attributed to Chevron, which has never in fact drilled for oil in Ecuador. State-owned Sinopechas a fairly horrific environmental record, and has occasionally been sanctioned for it — but when the same state that employs the regulators owns the oil company, regulation is basically futile. Mexico’s state-run Pemex caused what was at the time the largest oil spill in history; in another episode, an explosion at one of its facilities killed more than 500 people. It wiped out the fish in the Coatzacoalcos River by dumping chemicals in it; the few fish that survived were polluted so badly that locals reported smelling ammonia when they cut them open.
 
The history is much the same for state-run coal companies and similarly socialized industries.
ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al., have their sins, a notable one of which is partnering up with state-run oil companies. Everybody has a theory about what the future could look like, but if we look at the actual record — the record of history — capitalism wins, hands down, over socialism and other state-run economic models when it comes to environmental measures. There is no contest. And at the moment, many of the most interesting ideas about environmental protection are coming from explicitly free-market thinkers. It wasn’t socialism that saved the white rhino.
 
There isn’t any clean energy, and most significant industrial enterprise will impose some costs on the environment in the best of circumstances. The question is how to minimize the damage and mitigate the inevitable effects. The best line of defense against environmental damage is property rights, and the lack of property rights is one of the reasons that environmental devastation has been so severe in those unhappy parts of the world in which socialism has prevailed: If nobody owns the land or the water rights, then nobody can sue for damages when Big Socialist Oil dumps chemicals in the river. If the polluters and the regulators are on the same side — in the same party — expect narrow self-interest to trump everything else. You can sue Exxon; the people behind Sinopec have nuclear weapons.
 
And Exxon has never operated a gulag of which I am aware.
 
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.

Eric Holder’s Rap Sheet

Eric Holder’s Rap Sheet 
(Pool Photo/Getty Images)


E
ric Holder’s legal mercies have typically been reserved for Clinton donors and unrepentant terrorists, but his decision yesterday to step down as attorney general of the United States after nearly six years is an act of mercy toward the American public.
In an administration characterized by outsized misadventures — from the use of the nation’s tax bureau to suppress political opponents to the use of secret waiting lists at government hospitals that killed American servicemen — Eric Holder managed to make his Justice Department a source of special, nay, historic attention: In June 2012, Holder became the first U.S. attorney general to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives. He earned every vote.
Achieving “justice” via the Justice Department may be an intrinsically unlikely prospect, but none of Holder’s recent predecessors — Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Michael Mukasey, even the much-maligned Alberto Gonzales — exhibited his sheer contempt for the rule of law. Much to his preference was employing the law for political purposes; or, when necessary, dispensing with the law completely.
The latter was largely Holder’s policy as chief legal counsel to the president. The duty of the attorney general has historically been to advise against unconstitutional or illegal activity; Holder instead regularly aided and abetted it. When the president unilaterally delayed deportations for a select group of illegal immigrants, Holder concocted specious legal rationales to justify it. Regular slap-downs from the Supreme Court — on the president’s unconstitutional NLRB appointees, on his contraception mandate, on his unconstitutional effort to control ministerial hiring — have proven Holder’s legal work insupportable.
Nowhere was Holder’s rank partisanship more clearly on display than on issues of race: for instance, his refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation — despite video evidence of truncheon-wielding men warding voters away from a Philadelphia polling station in November 2008. Those whose political expression was inhibited in Philadelphia were not, Holder later suggested to the House Oversight Committee, “my people” — and thus apparently did not deserve the protection of the law. This from the lips of the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer. Meanwhile, Holder dismissed his critics as racists, eager to destroy him and the president because “we’re both African American.” This same “nation of cowards” was, by Holder’s reckoning, responsible for the voter-identification laws that his Justice Department has worked stridently — and largely unsuccessfully — to suppress in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.
Nor was it just Klan types in the Badger State that Holder eyed suspiciously. In May 2013 his Justice Department seized the phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters, and Fox News’s James Rosen revealed that the department had monitored his phone calls and e-mails.
Meanwhile, Holder opted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the September 11 attacks, and his co-defendants in federal court in New York rather than in military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay — a practice that blurs the line between crimes and acts of war.
All of the above has been astonishing — but utterly predictable. To those with eyes to see, it was clear even before his confirmation that Holder was not suited to the role of the nation’s lead law-enforcement officer. As deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, for instance, Holder “leaned” toward the pardon of fugitive and Clinton donor Marc Rich, and advocated clemency for 16 terrorists from the Puerto Rican FALN. But he still met with plaudits from a number of Republican senators.
In the coming months, those senators will have the chance to try again, as the Senate votes on a successor. Republicans should use every opportunity to push for a nominee whose first obligation is to the law — although the prospects of securing such a nominee from this administration are slim.
As for Holder, his time in the spotlight may not be over. The congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, and other dubious Department of Justice activities, continues, and Holder may — and likely should — find himself facing further congressional inquiry.
Regardless, the end of Holder’s death grip on law enforcement at the federal level is long overdue. Perhaps now the Justice Department can get back to delivering actual justice.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388913/eric-holders-rap-sheet-editors

WILL CLIMATE WEEK EVER END?


Is it still climate week? Yes, it must be, since John Kerry, who pretending to be secretary of state, has said climate change is just as urgent as ISIS. Also ebola.
No word yet on whether all the trash from the weekend’s climate march has been picked up yet, nor whether Leo DiCaprio picked up the tab. But then there’s this inconvenient headline from the Los Angeles Times a few days back:
LAT Hed copyNaturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warmingin the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time.
So what low-down, Koch-funded climate skeptic produced this study? Um. . .
The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Not to worry, though. The Animal House of the climate campaign made sure that we don’t get carried away here. Cue the Kevin Bacon scene, played in this sequel by board-certified climatista Kevin Trenberth, saying “Stay calm! All is well!”
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable. The results may also reflect the fact that the northeast Pacific is an area of the globe where past studies have shown the “signal” of climate change is low relative to the “noise” of natural variability.
“There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change,” Trenberth said. But, he added, “this does not call into question the concept of global warming.”
Just one question: if the “quality of the data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable,” then remind me again why we’re supposed to treat Michael Mann’s Hockey Schtick (or any other temperature reconstruction) so reverentially? Oh I forgot—because 97 percent!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/will-climate-week-ever-end.php