Wednesday, October 26, 2016

                                      SOME  LIKE  IT  HOT

The lead article in the latest issue of Climatic Change 

Climate change may speed democratic turnover        

ruminates on the electoral impact of  5 degrees C of global warming, as duly noted by :

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Science, Technology, and Public Policy
Voters Will Be Hot Under the Collar by 2099
By 2099 the nature of democratic politics could change in costly ways for politicians because of climate change, according to Nick Obradovich, research fellow with Harvard Kennedy School’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy program. Leveraging a century’s worth of political science research, he predicts in an article in Springer’s journal Climatic Change that voters’ disgruntlement about the societal effects of climatic extremes and weather-related disasters they experience will translate into more frequent turnover of political parties elected in and out of office, and will keep politicians of especially warmer, poorer countries more on their toes than is currently the case.

Obradovich conducted the first-ever investigation into the relationship between temperature, electoral returns and future climate change. He analyzed over 1.5 billion votes cast in over 4,800 electoral contests held in 19 countries between 1925 and 2011 and coupled it with meteorological data as well as climate models. Election results from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, and Zambia were used. However, countries lacking available electoral data – including most sub-Saharan African nations – weren’t included.

The analysis indicates that – once you control for all other place-specific factors like political institutions and levels of economic development – warmer than normal temperatures in the year prior to an election produce lower vote shares for parties already in power, driving quicker rates of political turnover. These effects are even more acute in areas with annual temperatures above 21 degrees Celsius (or 70 degrees Fahrenheit). In these warmer places, voter support shrinks by nine percentage points from one election to the next, relative to office bearers in cooler electoral districts. Using these historical effects, Obradovich forecasts that by 2099 climate change (when temperatures are expected to have risen by up to five degrees Celsius) may reduce the average vote share of office-bearing parties, especially in poorer, already warmer countries.

According to Obradovich, turnover directly related to politician performance is vital to a well-functioning democracy. He notes, however, that findings from the study indicate that democratic turnover might increase as a result of climatic events that are outside the control of individual politicians.

“Such exogenously driven political turnover may shorten democratic time horizons, inducing parties and their politicians to focus on short-run policies at the expense of important longer-run strategies,” he warns. “Such altered political time horizons may have a particularly deleterious impact on climate mitigation, as the long-run benefits of mitigation are unlikely to be observed from one election to the next.”

Obradovich adds that the uncertainty caused by increasing rates of democratic turnover can in turn directly upset macroeconomic outcomes on a broader scale.
Even more starkly, turnover in nations with weak democratic institutions can up-end political stability. If incumbents in weak democracies foresee a greater risk of losing office, they sometimes employ electoral fraud and pre-electoral violence to maintain power,” he explains. “If these methods fail, incumbents’ loss occasionally precipitates post-electoral violence that can in turn induce broader civil conflict."

Friday, October 21, 2016




Tuesday, October 18, 2016


Wikileaks has  dropped an anvil  on  John Podesta's toes by
revealing the Presidential Advisor & former  Chief of  Staff tasked the authors of  Masters of  Disaster  with developing


"From:  To:  
Date: 2014-01-28 14:37 Subject: Follow-up
John -- 
Really nice seeing you last week... 
Per your request, attached is a memorandum outlining a possible unifying approach for the Administration when it comes to climate... 
the specific material requested(a range of so-called "frames"...written so as one could just cut and paste... to provide some strategic thinking on the politics of climate ... 

We hope this is helpful and stand ready to support whatever you may need... Break a leg (or a hand, as the case may be) tonight.

Best,      Christopher Lehane


Thank you for asking us to share some ideas for a holistic approach to climate. Per your direction, the goal is to unify policy, politics, and communications ...

The unifying theory is best expressed by this basic principle: If the effort to change public opinion on climate change is animated by the same one-off policies and practices that are employed to change public opinion on most other policy issues, then defeat is inevitable...

To achieve victory, we must treat climate change as... a true political social movement to create change...
 Fully leveraging ... Biblical superstorms, extreme droughts, and historic wildfires...

2. Right v. Wrong (Climate as political social change)...

one cannot be  handcuffed  by  data  on a fundamental moral issue of this kind..the magic will not be in the precision of specific words the Administration chooses to use ...

The concept must be big; it must be simple; and it must 'lean in'
to where the public is inclined to go ... The Big Idea would be the communications prism, the emotional touchstone, and the policy hub for all climate-related policies...

× Dialectic. At the end of the day... one needs to have an organizing platform that defines ... the opposition as morally responsible for an issue that threatens the health and welfare of the American people. TR had the plutocrats. FDR fought Fascism. LBJ took on poverty. And Reagan had the Soviets...

× Anti-Basic Science... The power of this approach is that it ... fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative
(anti-women; anti-Latino; anti-gun safety; anti-common sense fiscal policy; and anti-science) that is raising basic trust issues for the Republican Party ...

× Frame climate as... You either are a member of our society or you are a social misanthrope (i.e., litterer, smoker around a pregnant women, etc.).

Justice... This frame would also fit... the Administration’s focus on equality/opportunity, and could encompass both domestic issues and international issues (rising seas wiping out millions of poor people in Southeast Asia, droughts leading to famine in Africa; rising temperatures creating plagues in Latin America)...

× Anti-Tobacco... We realize that this is likely a bridge too far, but we felt obligated to present it in the range of options...

The Winning Principles 

- ending royalties to the most profitable companies in the world and sending the money back to the public as a tax break

- solar panels along our public roads that would reduce energy costs for all Americans

- barring or limiting utilities from charging fees to consumers who put solar panels on their domiciles

- improved drinking water standards

- significantly enhanced liabilities for companies that pollute water or pollute lands with pipeline/rail leaks

- asthma protections; establishment of a significant liability health and safety protocol related to fracking

- banning political contributions from entities that receive federal funding, permits or tax benefits related to public lands

- stronger consumes protection on gas prices to protect against refiners and distributors manipulating the supply lines

- protecting consumers from hot gas

× Briefing on the Big Idea to each and every Department/Agency. And then require that they... be held accountable and responsible.

× Weekly meeting with each agency’s point person and the White House point person.

× White House point person coordinates all activity with the White House communications office.

× Establishment of an extreme weather SWAT team..."




Sunday, October 16, 2016


Millions of  migrating  tweets  perished  last week as flocks of  twits were sucked into the carbon-offset vortex of blogosphere superstorm Leonardo. Maps from the Carbon Brief climate wars weather service  record  how  the  tragic  twitter  typhoon  raked  the  Left  Coast and accelerated eastward, sucking hot air from the right side of  K-Street and the west wing of the White House. 

Variety & Scientific American report extensive 10-K erosion occured as the cyclone tore  through  pundit nest-egging grounds in Malibu, Turtle Bay and La Jolla.

List of top tweets (by number of retweets) mentioning Leonardo Di Caprio in the week ending 06 March 2016.

Monday, October 10, 2016


0000000001716                              0000000 1866 OOO                    00000000201600=                 

                         FIFTY  SHADES  OF  DARK  MONEY

Where are Federal Behavioral & Cognitive Science dollars going?

"As  President  Obama  noted  in  his  Executive  Order  13707, ( The Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order)  behavioral science insights  can support a wide range of national priorities ...

Order 13707 directs Federal agencies to apply behavioral science insights to their policies and programs, and it institutionalizes 
the Social  & Behavioral  Science Team... 

The adminstration is releasing new guidance to agencies 
that supports continued implementation of  
The Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order. 

That  guidance  will  help  agencies  identify  promising 
opportunities to apply behavioral science insights 
to  their  programs  and  policies."
                               --    Statement by the Presidential Science Advisor, summer 2016


Thursday, October 6, 2016


 This Environmental Personality's address to  
The Paris Summit of Conscience :
“I’ve  starred in a lot of  science  fiction  movies  and, let me tell you something ... the debate is over...all over the world we can see  flooding,  monster  storms,  droughts  and  wild-fires  that  are completely  out   of   control."
moved noted climatrix  Jane Fonda  to tell  David Suzuki: " The world faces an existential crisis." Fortunately, the  A-List Personalities found an  existential angst workaround in their swag bags. 

Instead of I-phone CO2 offset Apps, or Jean-Paul Sartre's old standby, cartons of Gauloises Disque Bleu,  they got  free crystals of  that  fine metaphysical  product  Azeztulite!  Philistine  Azezulite  deniers,  like mineralogists,  may insist  the crystals are  just  plain  quartz, but their purveyor Mountaingems Healingcrystals, says they:
originated from star beings called, The Azez, which means “Nameless Light”,  to act as a communication device for their inter-dimensional travel... The vibrations of Azeztulite increase with rising of the vibrations of the Earth... 
Use with caution, as the vibrational shift it can induce may cause disorientation 
The firm offers the crystals to environmental summiteers to: 
"assist them in reclaiming knowledge from its genetic memory banks..raising vibrations  can activate their ascension points to shift discourse to a higher vibrational plane...because azeztulite  carries the vibration and energy of the intelligence of the Sun that holds the solar system in its energetic field. 
As we also align with our Sun, other Suns are sending their cosmic rays, these cosmic rays are solar flares from our Central Sun that are aligning on the Earth. The last time we were aligned to the Sun and Central Sun  we created the pyramids--
The Pleadians are joyously awaiting the Second Sun, which will manifest as the Central Sun Alcyone is in alignment on the 21st May, with the Wesak Full Moon and the Shamballa force on May 18th. The Central Sun Aldebaran, the eye of the bull, in Taurus will be aligned on 31st of May. Almach of the Andromedan Galaxy... in alignment with Divine Will and this galaxy is merging with us, this is a multi-dimensional experience..."
If stardust-enhanced galactic geomancy fails to modulate  enough cosmic rays to demagnetize the Iron Sun and usher in the Ice Age of Aquarius, the Personalities can reach for their credit cards and escalate to the next stage of Climate Wars Chakra-bending, on offer at a slight additional charge: Exorcism via the internet:

$35.00                       Product Code: REMOVAL

                        Availability: 27


Wednesday, September 28, 2016


Move over, Paris Review!  To  hear Anthony Watts
tell of  his FeedSpot rank, WUWT  now commands
the  blogosphere's  intellectual heights 
WUWT Awarded Top
_________  Beats    RealClimate,   NYT,   Guardian,   HuffPo

WUWT comes in at #41 out of 100, handily beating The Guardian Science at #46,  The New York Times Science at #47, Huffington Post Science at #48, Smithsonian Science at #51, and  RealClimate at #62.
                                             FACEBOOK          TWITTER         WEBRANK

Feedspot's numbers tell a different story-the real winner National Geographic  beat Watts 
by 42 million votes and 13 million Tweets
Bottom line ? So exclusive is Tony's glittering prize that it's gone to blogs seventeen  million  places  behind him !


                     WHAT  DIANETICS   DID  FOR VOCANOLOGY

"When it comes to global warming, most people think there are two camps: alarmist or denier being their respective pejoratives.

Either you acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change and consider it a dire global threat, or you deny it exists at all.

But there is a third group: the lukewarmers. In Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot-it's lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated-with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible."

What an odd change of heart -- The Cato Institute's in-house climate hacks, led by  Pat Michaels, issued this  headline-grabbing prediction  a decade ago:

Meltdown for Global Warming Science
Bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing out of the United Nations, and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In two research papers in…Geophysical Research Letters… 
we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.’s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.
 Pat Michaels  and Fred  Singer  were  dead  wrong — the satellite data they cited was seriously in error and the climatologists responsible,  Roy Spencer and John Christy,  duly issued a  retraction in  Science  in 2005 , telling  Newsweek in 2006: “our satellite trend has been positive.”
While Cato's bombshell report melted away without a trace, its K-street sponsors respond to the fiasco  by paying  the Heartland Institute to lionize  Michaels, Spencer, and Singer with its  Arthur Robinson Medal, Outstanding  Evangelical Climate Scientist ,  and Lifetime Achievement In Climate Science awards.

While the  Cato book is published by The Reason foundation,   
not even these guys are buying in :

Sunday, September 25, 2016


Old Tactics Revived as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deception Fails.  An Open Letter to an Open Letter
 /      Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball  
Recently an Open Letter was circulated and ostensibly signed by 375 members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It is reported on the web page is arrogantly called “ Use of the term in this context implies that those who do not belong are irresponsible scientists. Responsibility should go without saying.
I use the word “ostensibly” to describe the representation of the Open Letter. The initial impression is that it is a letter from the NAS. It is not! A separate sentence at the bottom of the letter explains.
The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions. Do we assume they obtained permission from all the members of the NAS? Were the contents approved by all members? Is this the behavior of “responsible” scientists?
The tactic of using a group is similar to the previous misuse of Academies of Science to promote the false narrative about global warming. Then it was orchestrated by Lord May (Brian May) when President of the Royal Society. At his instigation, all science societies were encouraged to take positions on behalf of their members. This missionary type of promotion and fervor is reflected in Lord May’s views on climate change identified in a 2009, pre-COP 15 (Copenhagen), and pre-Climategate revelations, article as follows,
“…religion may have helped protect human society from itself in the past and it may be needed again.… the committed atheist (May) said he was worried the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” brought on by its failure to co-ordinate measures against global warming.He said that no country was prepared to take the lead and a “punisher” was needed to make sure the rules of co-operation were not broken… in the past that was God and it might be time again for religion to fill the gap.“Maybe religion is needed,” “A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”

Friday, September 23, 2016


Headhunting apologies to  Guy  Badeau 
The last time a third party candidate won, we ended up with a tall guy in
 the White House who started a Civil War.  So don't waste your vote
on a low Whig  or a  21st Century Mugwump  -
listen to what the first real  Republican has to say:

Friday, September 16, 2016

                                  SHADES  OF  TONY  BLAIR


"As  President  Obama  noted  in  his  Executive  Order  13707, behavioral science insights can support a wide range of national priorities including ... accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy. 

That Executive Order, 13707, directs Federal agencies to apply behavioral science insights to their policies and programs, and it institutionalizes  the Social and Behavioral Science Team...The adminstration is releasing new guidance ot agencies that supports continued implementation of 

The Behavioral Science Insights Executive Order. That guidance will help agencies identify promising opportunities to apply behavioral science insights to their programs and policies."

Thursday, September 15, 2016



Ever wonder about the nomination process leading  to such oddly targeted  scientific honors as
Taking mercy on the world's overworked scientific award committees,  some civic minded grifters at The Heartland Institute have automated the process : all it  now takes is a  major  credit card, or a wire transfer. This comes as no surpise, for at heart, Heartland  Climate Conferences are gatherings of people paid to listen to people paid to speak.

Heartland's  fundraising links  reveal that for a  measly grand -- less than the page charges for many a  major journal-- your favorite PR flack, or  bloggerel hack  can get to play Laureate for a day:
"The Climate Change Awards are not all from The Heartland Institute. Most awards have different sponsors, and Heartland only provides logistical support.  Heartland created and hosts this Web site to promote award winners and award sponsors and to encourage others to sponsor awards and nominate candidates."
Here's the whole  Heartland pitch : 


Sponsoring a Climate Change Award is a wonderful way to encourage continued open debate and learning in the area of climate change research. It is also an opportunity for you to decide who to honor and in what fashion.
You may have already decided who to honor: a colleague or employee, a scientist you most admire, a civic or business leader who has taken the lead in the public debate, or an elected official who has the courage to speak out. The Heartland Institute asks that the person you choose be at the event at which the award is given, and that you pay any travel or honoraria that might be required.
Some of the questions you will need to answer include naming the accomplishment you wish to honor, who will make the presentation, and whether a cash stipend is to accompany the award. You need to decide if the award is to be represented by a plaque, trophy, or some other token of appreciation, and whether you will supply it or if you want The Heartland Institute to seek out one for you.
Some Housekeeping NotesWe are seeking proposals only for positive awards – nothing tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. You need written permission from the person whose name is attached to the award, or from said person’s estate if that person is deceased. The Heartland Institute can choose to accept or reject any reward proposal
Awards must be given as stated in the proposal, no last-minute changes. Award sponsors agree to pay The Heartland Institute a fee of $1,000 to help offset staff time involved in making this solicitation, helping to create and present awards, and promoting the awards. If the award is to be annual rather than one-time, we ask for a four-year commitment and a $4,000 administrative/promotional fee.
For awards with cash stipends, we ask for a minimum stipend of $5,000. Thus, the sponsor of a one-time award would pay The Heartland Institute a fee of $1,000 plus $5,000 for the stipend, for a total of $6,000. If the award is to be an annual award, we expect a minimum commitment of four years at $6,000, for a total of $24,000.
You can designate people you know and trust to nominate candidates for your award, vet outside nominations, and vote to choose the award winner. This is typically done only for annual awards, not one-time awards. The Heartland Institute asks that you identify and confirm members of your nominating committee and inform us of its decision. Alternatively, Heartland can choose the winner or name a nominating committee.
Marketing and PromotionThe Heartland Institute can work with other organizations to publicize your award, but only if you are comfortable with the attention. Before the event, we can issue news releases announcing awards, discuss the awards in op-eds placed with magazines and newspapers, and include the awards in online promotions on our Web sites and in social media.
During the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, we had poster-size images of awards and recipients on display in public areas, their images in the event program, and made announcements of award ceremonies during plenary sessions. After the event, we continued to promote awards with follow-up news releases, pictures and video posted on our Web site and shared with cosponsors, descriptions of the ceremony in op-eds and news releases, and in other ways.
For More InformationFor more information about sponsoring a Climate Change Award, contact Robin Knox at 312/377-4000 or by email at



Friday, September 9, 2016


Bishop Hill went missing three months ago, leaving faithful aide Josh to translate the unpublishable fringe science of the What Warming? conference circuit into the lingua franca  of innumeracy, the  Op-ed cartoon, witness his storyboard of  the  recent GWPF event:
It oddly recalls Postmodernism's latest contribution to the jargon wars:

If you can't follow the argument of either,  And Then There's Physics  features a more  meticulous deconstruction of the London conclave:

For those who don’t know, Murry Salby has been suggesting that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, and not anthropogenic. This is so obviously wrong, that I can’t really be bothered going through all the details again. Tom Curtis has a very nice post explaining the different lines of evidence as to why it is anthropogenic. I’ve written some posts aboutMurry Salby. Eli has a couple of posts too. Stoat has a lengthy post, and a much shorter one. Tom Curtis has another post about the Salby Ratio. There’s a lengthy Bishop Hill Discussion Thread (Gavin Cawley’s comments are worth reading).
The bottom line is that Murry Salby’s suggestion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, not anthropogenic, is clearly wrong. You would like to think that he’s simply confused, but some of what he presents is so obviously wrong and – in the case of the Salby Ratio – rather deceptive, that it’s hard to conclude that someone with his background, doesn’t realise his error. I think anyone with a basic understanding of data analysis and a basic understanding of the carbon cycle should recognise that his suggestions are wrong. I think it’s unfortunate that Judith Curry seems comfortable promoting his presentation without commenting on the scientific credibility of what he suggests.
Update: Richard Telford’s posts are also good (H/T Dikran).