Remember how skeptics are dying out?
Tens of thousands of Republican voters in Iowa chose the most skeptical candidate they could find. The new landscape of Republican contenders is dominated by skeptics, but the voters wanted the most skeptical. Senator Ted Cruz is flagrantly outspoken, is well read, and brings rare debate on climate issues to Congress.
Voters came en masse for the Iowa Republican caucas. Normally 120,000 Republicans vote in the Iowa caucus, but this time 180,000 turned out. One polling station ran out of ballots. Ted Cruz received more votes than any other candidate has ever received in Iowa.
The last few fringe skeptics of climate change must have all moved to Iowa right?
This is how skeptical Cruz is:
Ted Cruz is the candidate the climate Extremists hate the most.
See the Gullibility Index
The ABC and SMH described Cruz’s win, but did not mention that he was a skeptic. He is just someone who appealed to the evangelical base.
Cruz is not liked by the establishment Republicans at all. Should be interesting!
h/t Jim Simpson.
While the Iowa result is encouraging (at least to me) I wouldn’t read too much into it just yet. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet and there are 49 state primaries to go. And then the one vote that will tell us for sure who the next president will be is not until November.
301
I wasn’t trying to be #1, honest. 😉
122
‘I wouldn’t read too much into it just yet.’
His attitude towards guns and the deity is very disconcerting, but Cruz will surely win the election primarily because of his refreshing stance on climate change. He has promised to dismantle what Obama has done and Hilary is totally clueless on the subject of CC, so massive humiliation is on the way for green leftoids around the globe.
184
What is wrong with his attitude about guns?
142
‘What is wrong with his attitude about guns?’
Its a cultural perspective and I tend to side with Obama on this.
413
I tend to side with the clear, unambiguous language of the constitution.
201
So where’s the “well-regulated militia” ?
22
You could try and draw me into a debate on those words (even though the Supreme Court has ruled several times on the matter already), What should be clear to you are the meat and substance words that finish the sentence: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The well regulated militia is in my back yard and that greatly satisfies me, greatly annoys Leftists, Progressives and other foes of freedom.
80
Mark is correct. The semicolon separating well regulated militia from the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not just an idle punctuation mark. It makes the two phrases independent of each other so that the right to keep and bear arms stands on it’s own merit independently of any militia. And this is a matter of Supreme Court Interpretation, not the whims of the gun owners, the NRA or anyone else. If you doubt this, go back to school and study the meaning of the semicolon.
That being said, no one wants people running around with guns who should not have them. Likewise we have never allowed individuals to own or possess military grade weapons like howitzers, mortars and so-on. There is a good compromise between being armed and public safety and we used to understand what it was. But now the government fears the armed citizen because he can, in some measure, fight back effectively. And more so in concert with others. The UN fears the armed citizen more than anyone else or they would not be pushing their gun
controlconfiscation initiative.Unfortunately the criminal doesn’t follow the law and will get a gun anyway. And this is the strongest possible argument for allowing the honest citizen to be armed. If you were bent on burglarizing someone’s house in the middle of the night would you choose a house you could reasonably infer had a gun for defense or would you go to a place where guns are prohibited? I think the answer is obvious.
Any way we try to handle the gun problem — and it is a problem — guns are dangerous and there’s always a chance of getting hurt when a gun is involved in any confrontation. But you can be trained to handle them safely and effectively. A lot of things are dangerous that are also useful: automobiles; knives; any heavy tool; you can think of others. And we accept the risk because of plain old necessity to use those things. Such is life. Not everyone out there in the world around you is a friend. So get used to it.
Here’s a statistic for you to think about. I’ve probably said this before. It’s already 3 or 4 years old so the actual numbers might be different now. It goes like this.
When bullets are flying it’s damned dangerous. I don’t ever want to be in a gunfight. But I’ll take the situation where I can fight back any day over the one where I can’t.
110
Two things:
First: I should point out that the constitution has a clearly spelled out method whereby it can be changed if the people want it changed. It allows for change while being slow enough so the constitution isn’t subject to every whim of the electorate. But the federal government cannot unilaterally change what that governing document says. It takes the people in the form of their state legislatures to make any change. Even when the congress proposes a change it still requires the states to agree to it.
And second, the constitution has been changed 27 times since being adopted so I know it can be done. And if there was enough sentiment that the Second Amendment needs changing I’m quite certain that it would happen. Instead they try every end run around the people they can think of and they do it because they know any change to the Second Amendment would never be ratified by enough state legislatures.
I have no use for those who think it’s OK to simply change the constitution or any law by fiat. To hell with Obama’s pen and his phone. They have no legal weight exc[t the might of one who would b dictator. My curse to them.
80
El Gordo, to each his own except if you want to talk conservative, IMHO it is a package deal. I’ve never met another bonafide Conservative that was against self defense.
130
They (the Americans) can do as they please with guns, it’s not my business and I don’t care!
But US climate change policy does concern me so I’ll give my vote to Ted Cruz every time !
Geoff W Sydney
190
El Gordo
You gotta look at this in context, in the USA there are 500 Million weapons out there owned by both the good guys AND the bad guys. Bring in laws to restrict them and you will recover the 100 Million weapons owned by the law-abiding people leaving 400 Million in the hands of the bad guys, who now, by the way, know that the general population are largely unarmed. What’s going to happen? Chicago gangs on steroids.
Here in oz things are different gun ownership has never been easy so the street kids and “punks” don’t have access to weapons like in the USA. That means restrictions can work for us, while restrictions would work against the general population in the USA. The situations are completely different.
As much as you might ideologically identify with disarmament, the practical outcome in the USA from following your ideology would be disasterous. This illustrates the dangers of pursuing ideology over fact, things are never quite as simple as the ideology suggests. Obama is clearly also trapped in this ideological fools paradise.
110
I hear you all, its a completely different world.
The American War of Independence meant that Australia became the new dumping ground for English convicts. For some weird reason there is nothing in our Constitution on the right to have arms.
20
Bobl, I’m certain to not agree on the ratio you have guessed at above. 🙂
With respect to criminals having guns, yes they do and it is already illegal for them.
40
Bob L,
Not knowing what the laws are in Australia and also not knowing what the current situation is with respect to illegally obtained or possessed firearms I still have to think it’s probably not very hard to obtain a gun if you want one and don’t mind going outside the legal channels. There is unfortunately a very strong incentive for anyone contemplating criminal activity to be armed, whether here or in Australia. That’s just human nature. And as the economics of daily living become worse, as it is all over the world, I have to suspect that your gun problem there in Australia is on the increase.
I did some searching before writing this but I found so much that wasn’t of direct interest I finally had to give it up — maybe another day. The Internet can be a snow job of information sometimes. Anyway, I didn’t find the definitive statement I was looking for. So what more can you tell me about the situation there?
20
PS:
You’re correct about Obama living in a fool’s paradise. And he’s not the only one. Put the whole UN in that category.
40
Don’t know whether you’ll get this since the thread is old but yes, you are right. Illegal weapons do exist but the law of supply and demand makes them very expensive, your typical drug addicted street kid, petty criminal type can’t afford one so they suffice with knives for the most part. Because the bulk of the public don’t have handguns they can’t steal them easilly either.
Yes organised crime and the big gangs have weapons, no doubt – it’s on the news just about every night, however organised crime has an interest in “Keeping below the radar” so you wont see them out in public with them. The scale of our gun problem is such that illegal weapons are manageble by the police but in the USA with an unarmed public and several hundred years of constitutionally approved gun ownership building up a huge pool, I think the bad guys would overwhelm the system.
10
Bob,
Thanks.
Interesting point about the price of an illegal gun being prohibitive for the gangs, etc. Here, the price of a legally bought gun is well within the reach of most anyone with a job, depending, of course, on the gun you want. With several gun dealers in competition for the customer’s money the price is kept down. The criminal is mostly interested in a light pistol, easy to carry and hide in a pocket. Nine millimeter is very popular for that reason and it’s a good weapon for home defense too if that’s your interest. But I can’t do anything but speculate about the price of an illegally obtained gun. I do know they sometimes pass from hand to hand without money being involved. It’s a real problem. Unfortunately, prohibiting gun ownership does not solve it.
That we have a very large number of guns in the hands of the people doesn’t bother me much. The guy who got it legally is usually responsible with it. It’s the one in a hundred or a thousand who isn’t completely stable mentally that I worry about. And I don’t know how to weed them out.
By the way, we have a many gun owners who hunt, target shoot or both, some competitively. I’ve a brother-in-law with a display cabinet full of trophies attesting to his skill at skeet shooting. One of his daughters and her husband do competition pistol shooting and I mean big stuff, .45 caliber. Being slender and a little short you would wonder why the gun doesn’t knock her over when it’s fired.
There’s a lot to the gun equation. I expect it’s the same in Australia. And no easy solution to the problems.
10
“Here in oz things are different gun ownership has never been easy so the street kids and “punks” don’t have access to weapons like in the USA”
Yes and no. Legal firearms are still fairly easy to obtain, if you are patient. Yes there are restrictions, but generally its straight forward. I also agree its pretty easy to get an illegal firearm if you want one. That said, manufacturing a home made weapon in theory is also pretty easy – most stuff you need can be obtained from the local hardware store and steel merchant – its definately not rocket science. A hole drilled in some steel and a rudimentary spring-powered firing pin is in theory straight forward.
As Oz lurches further and further into Socialism, the true powers behind the throne ( including socialist John “Gun Control” Howard ) are only scared of one thing – people being able to defend themselves against being brutalized.
The framers of the US Constitution had lived through the liberation of their own country from an occupying force, and understood history and human nature.
40
Steve,
Thanks.
This statement you made is indeed the basis for the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately times have changed greatly and our understanding hasn’t kept up. When the constitution was amended to guarantee gun ownership the government had nothing more than what the citizen could arm himself with and direct confrontation of the government by an armed citizenry was a practical approach to counter tyranny. Today the government has the use of weapons that the guy on the street can’t get and shouldn’t get. So the idea of armed citizens actually having an ability to fight back against a tyrant isn’t a practical one. We could make it cost them more than they want to pay but that’s about all. They could use overwhelming force if they wanted to.
We still can and should use deadly force to defend our property, families and anyone else who’s threatened if that’s the only alternative. And that’s at the heart of the fight to keep Second Amendment rights intact as I See it.
10
Gee where do I start –
A. Yes you can obtain certain classes of firearms but not usually automatic weapons. However legal weapons are individually identified and tracked to certain people. While theoretically the USA is similar there is a large pool to hide illegal weapons in. Supply and demand makes it easier to steal or buy a (cheaper) weapon.
A home made weapon of the nature you describe may be straight forward but could fire only one shot at a time, and is more likely just to blow up in the crims hand
I concur with your last point, the USA has this in it’s constitution because of the war of independence which Australia never had – history has its learnings, and that’s why it’s different here.
Finally the point I was trying to make is you need to look at context – that in spite of the constitutional issues, disarming the public after hundreds of years of legitimate gun ownership is a disaster in the making. You can’t disarm the good guys without first disarming the bad guys.
10
And that’s the problem we face. I wish there wasn’t even any motive to own a gun unless you want to hunt or target shoot. But in certain places, it’s really sound thinking to arm yourself and get trained to use it effectively.
10
This presidential election will not be decided on the issue of climate change. CC is a pretty low priority with most people.
80
It will be decided on a president who will not be swayed by the Illuminati/Chatterati/Psuedointellectuals. Even some of the Green Blob would vote for him if only to reign in the stupidity and a typical conservative doesn’t want a radical president. Concentrating on CC is a good thing for him.
As for guns – there is a high homicide rate where the rate of illegal gun ownership is high. In Switzerland, the number of guns per person is almost half of the USA but close to as high per household. The rate of fatal shootings per capita is about a third of that in the USA but nearly all are suicides. Getting rid of new gun sales in the US now is not going to change much.
101
‘Concentrating on CC is a good thing for him.’
Its a great soft option which should get him over the line, mainly because he understands the science and none of the others do.
Howie its a sleeper, but by the end of the campaign its bound to be the talking point, unless the MSM in fear and trepidation avoids the issue altogether.
21
Its nice to see someone else who understands the realpolitik
10
Historically Iowa is good at picking losers not winners. Hence Trump still has an excellent chance of being picked for the Republican side. The next few campaigns will be interesting.
11
The ultra-right might vote for Trump, but he’s just entertainment for the rest of the right. The left hate him so much they’d pack him up on the next rocket out, if possible.
It’s looking to be whoever (probably Cruz) gets the Republican nomination -vs- Bernie/Hillary, and although I am a staunch lefty in most things (clean enviro, save bees, plant trees, all good), the green blob has soured me on anything that smacks of lefty-eco-kookery. I do like my freedoms, and have grown too old to want to carry my water uphill in buckets so I can take a cold shower. I detest the Homeland Security bunch, can’t abide religious fanatics, and think we USAns are over-regulated as a people (too many silly laws) and way under-educated.
Bernie is too silly-socialist, and while he talks a great game, the reality is the Presidential position holds little power to do the things everyone wants him to do. So my bet is on Cruz, or whoever ends up with Republican nod, unless it’s Trump. Then the world will have truly turned inside-out and it’ll be time for new meds.
30
I just love how the Left always count the chickens before they are hatched: http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/what-a-humbled-donald-trump-looks-like-on-twitter-20160202-gmk3nv.html
10
Nova is either just funning with people here or has no knowledge of statistics. I don’t stop by here very often, so I can’t really say which.
1. More voters went for Cruz than for any other candidate.
2. Cruz is the most skeptical candidate.
Ok so far, but to infer from these 2 premises that Cruz received the most votes *because* he is the most skeptical candidate is a complete nonsense. There is no causality. Warming is a very low priority to the Republicans, it’s all guns and size of government and terrorists. Ok, and Donald’s hair.
This is year 8 clear thinking people – try and do better.
Given that the many ‘well read’ Republicans like Cruz are creationists, they probably figure that even if warming is real, God will step in at some time and save them.
04
Sure Melbournesam “complete nonsense” – and which Republican contender is pushing IPCC climate science and how well do they poll… “Jeb”
Just show me how most Americans believe in climate change, and “deniers” are unelectable. That’s the meme the Global Worriers have been pushing for twenty years. The ABC and SMH punish Trump and Cruz for being skeptics in nearly every article, but when the article is about their popularity suddenly it’s unmentionable.
And quote where I said *because*.
60
Imagining a Cruz-Rubio ticket. 🙂
A huge stake through the putrefied heart of the AGW scam, although the more rabid socialists would still hang onto it for grim death…. they need it to push their totalitarian agenda and to destroy capitalism (as the Orkese said was the aim).
10
On your marks …. Go!
This from UPI last October …
[Meaningless statistic – how large was the sample? How diverse was the sample demographically, how many survey forms were sent out? How many responded? Was it merely limited to political scientists at Texas? Were the choir simply singing the song back to them? The opportunity for bias is tremendous within a closed group] Fly
Even Republicans. Wow. How embarrassing.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/10/20/Poll-76-percent-of-Americans-say-climate-change-is-happening/4111445374964/
…. or we could go with this study from Yale
[Yes, we have done this to death. 71% are convinced that climate changes. Observant lot, that 71%. Whereas 69% believed in human causation … Belief is the purvue of religion, not science. You can imply almost anything using statistics, if you phrase the questions with care.] Fly
– See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-opinions-on-global-warming-a-yale-gallup-clearvision-poll#sthash.XfdkKjBN.dpuf
02
Which shows how embarrassingly bad you are are reasoning. Even skeptics say “climate change” is occurring. Ever heard of an Ice Age? The “global warming” term is also just as useless.
You cite loaded ambiguous surveys which don’t ask specific enough questions. Surveys that ask better questions show consistent results across the US Australia and the UK. 31% in the US agrees with the statement that climate change is a total hoax.. These are implacable skeptics. There is virtually no more skeptical answer they could give.
A Gallup Poll in March 2015 showed that skepticism is on the rise and has been since 1989. 45% of the US population is “relaxed” about the threat of climate change.
Republicans are now competing to get votes on the skeptical side of the fence. Climate change is consistently low on their priorities, but believing in climate change is now a liability for a Rep.
20
… Ok. I will. Here is where you did so …
See? You said that the voters voted for him *because* he was the most skeptical candidate.
[Wrong! The word ‘because’ does not appear in what Jo wrote. You put words in her mouth and then feign faux outrage. That is pathetic.] Fly
Here is a suggestion for a future topic. If 71% of the US public are on board over climate change, how is it that 0% of the Republican contenders accept it?
01
No I did not say “because”. You read in some imagined single cause issue. Regular readers here know very well that poll after poll shows that almost every issue is more important to US voters than the fantasy of man-made climate change. (see the links in my previous answer).
71% of US voters are only “on board” in vague ambiguous polls that ask motherhood questions and don’t ask “what will you pay” (which is almost nothing voluntarily). You’ve been fooled by the agitprop.
It is no accident that 0% of Republican candidates are outspoken fans of the Global Warming Scare. That was the point of my post. The landscape has changed, and all that propaganda we’ve been told for years about skeptics being unelectable is utterly wrong.
40
I thought the political class had a fiduciary duty to demonstrate that a wind farm which
taxpayers and energy consumers were being asked to fund and support actually did something.
Yes, sure, we have studies that say X tonnes of emissions have been saved, but these “results” are based
on Nameplate Data with a fudge factor telling us how strong the wind average is.
However, I have seen no studies telling me how many tonnes of coal or m*3 of gas have been saved.
Now that we have 200,000 wind turbines operating worldwide, surely someone can tell me how much fossil fuel
has been saved. Is there a difference in unit fossil fuel consumption before windmills and after?
252
I recall seeing a chart showing that the Germans are burning almost the same tonnes of coal as they did before their massive roll out of renewables.
https://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/german_coal_conundrum.pdf
The charts are a little deceptive as they start prior to the reunification, and include the massive shutdown program of old inefficient coal plants in east Germany.
80
Look, I know this is not on the topic of the Iowa Caucus results, but this is worth mentioning here, where Sceptic56109 mentions this: (my bolding here)
When you read my explanation for this here, read it very carefully, and note the position of, and the meaning of the word ….. IF.
Where wind plant proposals, and their sites for information on the Wind Plant, say that X number of Tonnes of CO2 have been saved, what that really means is that the total CO2 savings of X Tonnes are what they claim to be ….. IF ….. a same nameplate coal fired plant was to be constructed INSTEAD OF the wind plant.
The inference in what they are saying is that they construct this wind plant, and BECAUSE of that, then those CO2 savings will be from existing plants which now do not need to be delivering the same amount of nameplate power.
They are two entirely different things.
I know it seems complicated, but it’s very clever marketing, something wind plant proposers and their sites have developed into a fine art, hiding the truth in plain sight, because no one knows the engineering technicalities of what is being said.
Tony.
210
Brilliant Blog Tony . . .
The truth right between the eyes.
Regards Geoff W Sydney
50
Tony off topic
Catalyst had a show about solar/ household batteries on last night.
I know this is an area you know a bit about – are the changes/ devlopments in household storage as significant as was made out?
Love to hear your thoughts
Stevo
00
I know I’m late, but I thank you, Tony, for the clarification of how the
acolytes explain their CO2 savings.
I think it’s important to stress that the calculations you have just
explained do not include the inefficiencies imposed on the grid, you know,
hot spinning reserve using single cycle gas turbines, and also parasitic losses of
windmill peripherals.
Therefore, the NET BENEFIT of a windmill that is installed and running (even if it was “free”)
could be ZERO.
I saw a comment referring to Germany’s experience but we need more studies.
30
Well I can tell you, Windmills on the whole ADD extra CO2 of about 1.5 – 2 time nameplate (converted to CO2e) largely because the trees that used to be sequestering CO2 where the windmills are were cut down to make way for the windmills. As for offshore wind, the algae and sea plants attached to the concrete base probably sequester more CO2 than the windmill saves.
50
The Ted Cruz “win” is *not* a reflection of his Climate Change skepticism. He put a total emphasis on his religious credentials, which is important to a large group of Iowa voters. That religious showmanship will not help him in most other states. I will give Cruz credit for speaking out against ethanol mandates, which greatly benefit the people of Iowa.
181
Cruz’s efforts with volunteers on the ground were highly touted among political pundits. Several days before the elections, a team of political commentators on NPR were backing Cruz for the GOP win based on his ground support. He had the infrastructure in place in Iowa that the others didn’t.
121
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was 6 coin flips from disaster (4 would have done it). She might yet end up as the Democrat nominee, but I would think if the Dems aren’t in a panic mode yet, then they won’t be far from one. At this stage, her presidential chances appear to be declining by the minute. She isn’t the shoe-in that the media had her pegged to be several months ago. The email controversy, amongst other things, has torn her reputation and it’ll be tough to get it back.
240
I wonder how long and hard the MSM will try to bury Clinton’s latest bad news about her emails? I read that had it been anyone else, she’d already be indicted for her activities. But all of this will probably wait until after the election, in order to protect one of the ‘team’.
190
Yes, someone lower on the totem pole would have probably been marched to jail, but nor would they have been in a position to handle state emails via their personal accounts. She might be quite correct in her contention that nothing was marked Top Secret in her email, but I suspect many of the voters aren’t falling for the lame excuses. The emails might not have been marked as such, but most people being placed in a similar situation have a sense for when they have highly sensitive and potentially damaging information in their hands. As Secretary of State, I suspect many people just wonder at the level of incompetence. Hillary Clinton might be happy to blow it off, but many voters aren’t. Die-hard Democrats might not concern themselves over it, but there are many voters who I feel, have been motivated to express their disapproval through the ballot box.
120
Have to hand it to the MSM. When they want someone enough, they get him or or her. In Australia they’ve just imposed an unelected PM who still hasn’t finished any of the sentences he started last year.
80
The three top vote getters in the (R) primary are skeptics and they garnered 70% of the vote. Cruz was the only one to come out against ethanol subsidy and the corn farmers still voted for him.
230
Corn for fuel or corn for food, the end result is much the same, especially with the third world often on the brink of starvation because of corn for ethanol.
80
During financial calamity, when the generation of CO2 from the oil industry is at an all time low with over half of the oil rigs in the world shut down in just one year, maybe Cruz can broker a deal with the corn farmers to bail out the floundering oil industry and boost CO2 emissions back up again to per-financial crash/meltdown levels???
The banking industry was bailed out by taxpayers in 2007 so rescuing the ExStrong oil industry this time around would be a piece of cake? for Cruz?
“LONG-TERM CORPORATE CREDIT RATING PLACED ON CREDITWATCH WITH NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS; SHORT-TERM RATING AFFIRMED
Exxon Mobil Corp.: ‘AAA’ Corporate Credit Rating Placed On CreditWatch With Negative Implications; ‘A-1+’ Short-Term Rating Affirmed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-02/sp-just-downgraded-10-biggest-us-energy-companies
30
This is an interesting article about the corn issue and Cruz… In any case In my opinion, it is the banks/creditors that control the oil industry and government via ‘purse strings’ which in turn translates in to high or low emissions. It is not the other way around. No money, no CO2 emissions. Without money, it is not possible to buy corn and burn ethanol. No Co2 emissions.….. Very simple relationship.
From the article in the link below…”Cruz has said he favors an “all of the above” policy when it comes to fuels – and that Washington “shouldn’t be “picking winners ands losers.”
And “Cruz recently stated that “market access (for ethanol) is critical” and even gone so far as to argue that anti-trust laws be “vigorously enforced to ensure that the oil and gas industry cannot block access to the market for ethanol producers.”
But ethanol has never been blocked from entering the market. The problem is just the opposite. Ethanol producers want a “market” created for their product – enforced by government. They want to suppress the market’s verdict about ethanol, bypass the preferences expressed by Americans for gasoline rather than ethanol-adulterated “gas.”
From: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-30/i-owe-ah-crime-called-ethanol
60
The US lands between the mountains have always had a difficult time getting products out to the world. In the 1800s the product was shipped out in barrels as liquid. Kentucky Bourbon Higher value and less spoilage that way.
“The third world” and the UN think farmers should grow food and give it to them for free while despots, religion, and tribal instincts prevent the people from 3rd world advancing to 2nd world. Change those systems and wheat, corn, and other foods can willingly be supplied to them. Farmers really don’t care who buys their crops.
00
Actually the top 4 got 86%. Carson got 9%.
Fiorina didn’t do well, so there were other factors.
I expect that within a short time it will be Cruz, Trump and Rubio in the Republican race, and Clinton and Sanders as the choice for the Democrats. While people are surprised by Cruz winning, it was tipped in the last few days. The big surprise was Rubio who wasn’t thought a real contender by the MSM, just as they thought Clinton would gallop in.
Rubio will get a lot of support from fellow Republicans who don’t like Cruz or Trump, and who will feel he is a winning candidate.
Clinton has lots (and lots) of money behind her and should beat Sanders in the long run, but how enthusiastic will the Democrats be?.
50
My Early Fearless Prediction:
Marco Rubio gets the Republican nomination, sweeps much of the hispanic vote, gets a majority of womens’ vote and beats Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
Once elected, he won’t dare face the rest of the world and fight the AGW orthodoxy. He will do as Stephen Harper did in Canada: afraid of liberal media, try to look like he is playing the game, resist only passively…
70
Rubio is ignorant on CC and that won’t wash in this election.
We are talking about a real debate where Cruz has all the correct answers.
101
Most people put CC pretty low on their list of priorities.
30
That’s true, terrorism gets top billing from Gallup with a meager 16%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187655/americans-name-terrorism-no-problem.aspx
00
BernardP,
I think you’re mostly right, except, unless there is a cataclysmic shift in congress, both houses will still be majority Republican. Rubio may not be a strong leader against AGW, but is much more likely to support (and sign) any legislation coming out of congress (which, I think, can be said of all of the Republican front runners for the most part).
20
Ted Cruz is slime.
Lied about Ben Carson dropping out, he did, to pick up some of Carson’s devout and honorable voters, he did.
Cruz didn’t even meet my already low expectations for him. It’s to my credit that this is disappointing and to my shame that it is actually a little surprising.
However, never will I be surprised by Ted Cruz’s lack of ethics, honor, and class again: Cruz isn’t fit to hold his Senate seat, much less be President.
216
More Ted Cruz shenanigans:
DISGUSTING! Cruz Camp Smearing Donald Trump at Iowa Caucus Sites
Ted Cruz Defiant on Iowa Mailer: ‘I Will Apologize To Nobody’
However, lest Jo make too much of this, this is Iowa: they almost always get it wrong.
415
*they
12
Let me guess….you are a fan of Hillary, right?
21
No.
Trump.
41
Christoph, I’m not defending Cruz but is he worse than Clinton slime? The reality is at some point we decide between one slime or another. The respectable ones never seem to do well.
41
Yes, he is. Cruz would overturn, or try to overturn, some of the gains made in human rights over the last 50 yrs. such as women’s rights and same-sex marriage. Cruz is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
26
Howie, where do you get that from?
10
No.
However, I considered him a suitable second choice to Donald Trump, or a good Trump VP pick. No more. Cruz told three lies leading up to and on primary night to disenfranchise GOP caucusgoers by fraud.
It’s one thing to fight one’s opponents hard; it’s quite another to go after the voters themselves by deceiving them—and that’s what Cruz did. He’s dead to me.
23
My comment in reply to you is caught up in moderation, but short answer is I support the Donald. I used to like Cruz, but no more, not after, count them, three lies leading up to and on caucus night.
If he was just fighting the Donald over this (or Ben Carson), fine. But no, these were designed to disenfranchise GOP caucusgoers themselves. That’s despicable.
Deceiving your own voters to get them to vote for you is not fair dinkum. I get JoAnne’s point about Cruz (and Trump) being AGW skeptics. However, Cruz’s win is marred by his deceptive fraud, and that diminishes the point JoAnne is making regarding Cruz’s victim commensurately.
23
*victory
01
Two of my comments in reply to you are in moderation. This is a test to see if it’s because of a keyword or I’ve been blacklisted.
01
Obviously it’s only a keyword. I hope they’re retrieved from moderation soon, and you’ll have my answer to your question. (Short answer: No, but.)
01
The key word here is the one which sounds like this.
Say the brand name of the car with the blue oval logo, only add the letter R after the first letter of that name.
Avoid using that word, and your comment won’t go into moderation.
Let the preview button and a quick read through of your comment be your friend here, proof reading.
Tony.
30
Frord? beautiful plumage! 🙂
20
Is this the word you mean, Tony ? ƑŘÀÜÐ
30
One of my comments is in moderation too. Don’t know why.
12
Your typical evangelical Christian hypocrite.
211
And how many evangelical Christians do you, Howie, know in order to be able to say that hypocrisy for them is “typical”? I know plenty, and I can assure you that for the most part they are humble folk, aware of their shortcomings, sins, and failings, and constantly seeking God’s – and others’ – forgiveness. This from you sounds more like a smearing and sweeping generalisation. I don’t know you, of course, but that said remember the old saying about those who live in glass houses.
120
i remember that saying, I think it was,
“People in glass houses shouldn’t watch television in the nude”
60
Perhaps what he means is that since a true Christian is not supposed to tell lies then how can one be a politician at the same time? That would make him a hypocrite. Granted it’s possible a true Christian could be a politician and not tell lies but in the world of politics today I find that to be extremely unlikely if not impossible.
30
Did I say ALL Christian evangelicals? NO! I was referring to the subset that includes Ted Cruz and his ilk who would love to turn America into a theocracy.
28
Again Howie, where do you get that from?
20
Howie you need to be better informed. Cruz is a member of the Southern Baptists, the largest evangelical group in the States. Hardly an evangelical subset. Further evangelicals of all stripes take the teaching of Jesus seriously.
Jesus said “Give to Caesar (the State of his time) what belongs to Caesar and give to God what is Gods” i.e. Separation of Church and State is not a left wing doctrine but a fundamental Christian doctrine. Check out James Madison’s source for this doctrine in the US Constitution.
Another requirement for a theocracy, that is also missing in evangelical doctrine, is found in this expression from Jesus. “My kingdom is not of this world otherwise I would send soldiers to fight”.
Cruz is about the only obviously intelligent lawyer, when it comes to exposing the man made climate change scam, at present on view. That is the one area where a highly intelligent President like Cruz, a rare commodity in the US, would be equipped to and likely to stand up to the UN IPCC and its fellow travelers from the alarmist sect of climate science. This is the advantage Cruz has over every other candidate.
80
I wouldn’t bet any money on Cruz winning the nomination or the election if I were you.
04
I used to be a Southern Baptist- until I became educated.
04
Stealing from Brother Dave Gardner, are we?
10
Interesting “sermon”, in this article, on his Christian faith by Rubio in response to an atheist’s question about his rights against religious rights.
https://stream.org/evangelicals-evangelical-vote-shaped-results-iowa/
10
It has been often said that politics is the art of lying. In the dirty arena of street politics as distinct from Statesmanship and Leadership, which may come later and for which we all hope, regrettably nearly anything goes that secures the desired result. In a sense politics is the concentrated microcosm of elegant and ethical behaviours, as it is the microchasm of the seedy and sordid.
That said, it’s a ‘bold’ person that casts the first stone. After all, it is the voter who holds the choice.
20
Wow? Now that was despicable smearing, Christoph.
Everybody have a read of the evidence for his rant. Tweets from a Guardian reporter. An apology for getting something wrong rather than spreading a malicious rumour.
What a Grub.
50
This rumour must be spreading fast. I heard it in Oz from a colleague earlier today. Will be doing a little research myself. Cruz is quite a scary individual from all accounts.
40
According to Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/02/carson-accuses-cruz-camp-spreading-false-rumors-on-campaign-suspension.html
Caught red-handed and I suspect this will play into Trump’s hands. Why forward a story if they thought he was just making a pit stop to refresh for the next leg of the campaign? Clearly it was intended to be misinterpreted as withdrawal from the campaign, which is what subsequent commentators took it to mean. At best this would be described as an extremely underhanded move.
23
Trump’s or Rubio’s. Either way, it hurts the thrice-lying snake Cruz (and thrice only refers to his lies to attack, not other candidates, but the other candidates’ voters through deception.
Dirty tricks usually are limited to going after other candidates, not to trick voters into voting for you—certainly not in the first contest in a long primary election. Cruz deserves to lose major support over this, and will at least lost some. What a Pyrrhic victory for a slimeball.
110
I wonder how the gullibility tables are produced. Anyhow this is rather encouraging. It will be interesting to see how the index matches up with candidates in NH.
20
If I recall correctly the gullibility index came from a survey of the level of scepticism produced by some AGW proponent trying to besmirch the AGW sceptics in the presidential race, Jo has just cleverly inverted the scale given that %gullibility is 100-%scepticism.
Hung on their own petard you might say.
10
OT, but my feelings are really hurt this morning.
I received this rejection from their ABC. Andrew MacRae told me I didn’t have a hope in Hell.
“Thank you for your application to join the ABC Advisory Council.
The range and quality of applicants and the level of support expressed has been outstanding. In all we received 1,732. All applications have now been considered for the five vacancies available. I regret that you were not successful on this occasion. Shortly, we will place the names and biographical details of the 5 newly appointed members on the Council’s website:
http://ab.co/advisorycouncil
I hope you will continue to maintain an interest in ABC programming. Your willingness to participate in the ABC’s work in this way is appreciated.”
I had forgotten I even applied.
50
Ted also loves to grill bacon on assault rifles. He sure must have put a lot of ground work in to secure the Iowa vote but it is encouraging that Americans will vote for a climate sceptic.
Interesting also that climate change did not rate a mention once in all of the Republican debates and hardly in the democrat’s.
However I feel that Rubio is now the man. He ticks all the squares and will give Hillary a very tough fight.
00
Rubio would make a good president, but he’ll need to get up to speed on climate change or Hilary could beat him.
10
el gordo:
The problem is that they have voluntary voting. If the party followers don’t like the candidate then they won’t vote. Thus Cruz might get the religious vote but lots of middle of the way voters may choose not to vote. Equally Clinton faces a hurdle as a lot don’t like her, so even if she gets nominated she could lose if those keen on Sanders don’t vote.
Rubio is probably the best choice for the Republicans as he doesn’t frighten the horses.
In Australia we have to vote, or actually place a voting slip into the box, it can be blank and hence wasted. Voting informal is a wasted vote. If you vote all too often you can only choose the least objectionable of the major parties, or vote for an alternative and direct your preference to the lesser of two evils. (This latter course has the advantage of letting the party know you don’t like them, as they miss out on the payment for each primary vote).
10
In straya Rubio would be politically incorrect.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/02/3745336/rubio-not-moderate/
10
Ted Cruz is the smartest guy in the room! I watched him grill an EPA bureaucrat during a Senate committed hearing and all the knuckle headed bureaucrat could respond was he was citing EPA propaganda over and over again! Cruz, who went to Harvard for his law degree, was praised as one of the smartest student by his professor, the well known liberal Alan Dershowitz. Cruz is very combative when pushing his ideas about the US Constitution and he takes no prisoners! He’s not well regarded by the Washington political cartel.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/15/dershowitz-very-strong-argument-what-ted-cruz-doing-deeply-unconstitu
100
So how can Cruz win when his senator colleagues reportedly hate Him?. I like what he has said so far…has to be better than the rest on both sides.
40
He’s got to do well in South Carolina, where they are more religious than New Hampshire, less than Iowa (or less naive, anyway). That’s usually the decider.
11
Iowa was a caucus where Cruz was well prepared. New Hampshire and South Carolina are primaries where votes count and Trump will likely poll better. Watch out for Rubio. As the low performers pull out, the voters that supported them will possibly migrate to Rubio.
11
Ted has made a good start, but the road is long and tiring with many potholes. One can only lament that we haven’t politicians of his ability, and in this case in particular, a profound knowledge of the AGW hypothesis and lack of evidence. When one can make the President of the Sierra Club look foolish it says something.
Forget about Minister Hunt, but could you see the head of BOM or the CSIRO standing up to Senate enquiry with Senator Cruz asking the questions instead of Senators SHY or Lambie!!!
51
His ability? He had to tell three lies, two of them last minute, to win Iowa. And Iowa caucuses are usually a joke, and don’t predict the eventual winner.
Plus most of his colleagues who know him hate him.
111
Many of K. Rudd’s colleagues hated him too, but he got to be PM – Twice! So whether the party likes you or not generally plays second fiddle to how the candidate plays out in the electorate. Having said that I don’t vote for liars or political expedients – for example a labor party that refuses to pass the senate budget measures that THEY PROPOSED just to gain political leverage. I have no idea what I’ll do next year since I won’t vote for ideological zealots like Mal that know AGW is a fake but choose to chase the ideological fantasy anyway either. Looks like an indi next time or maybe a Nat.
It’s like when a child says , dad, I know Santa Claus isn’t real but I’d like to believe in him anyway so I can have more presents at Christmas.
I like Cruz for his fearlessness but unless he can acknowledge his mistakes and correct any lies (like for example Abbott could) he would be toast for me.
11
Yeah, in the leftist party. Remember, these are people who overlook Chappaquiddick, Bill Clinton’s perjury (etc.), Obama’s starting his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist whose wife served time for her part and whose husband’s organization bombed the Pentagon.
Republicans aren’t, despite their many faults, not like that in the main. You can’t compare the Labor party’s ethical “standards” to a conservative party’s.
00
Anyone have a feeling for who got the ABT votes?
00
You meant EBT and that would be Sanders
00
My question was serious. Do voters turn out (whoever it might be) to vote for someone from their favoured side of politics that they don’t particularly like in order to help prevent a candidate that they loathe from winning?
00
I’m sorry Gee, I don’t know the acronym “ABT”. For the record EBT is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_benefit_transfer .
The humor should be self evident.
30
Anyone But Trump.
He is the most divisive figure among the candidates. There is every possibility that a significant (in the context of a close race) proportion of voters dislike him enough to vote for a candidate so as to remove him from he race but are not passionate about a particular candidate. My question is where would those votes go and are they significant?
10
I think that Gee Aye used the acronym ABT here to mean Anyone But Ted.
It’s similar to the ’76 campaign when Jimmy Carter looked certain to win the nomination, and had beaten off three other candidates, and then they had a couple of latecomers on the ABC platform, Anyone But Carter, and hey, note that one of those latecomer candidates was a very young California Governor Jerry Brown, yeah, good old Moonbeam, even though he only just made the age limit by a year or so.
Still Governor now.
Tony.
30
Jo
O/T for an obvious reason
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/02/a-clock-tune-in-honor-of-a-true-man-of-true-science/
30
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/sanders-to-student-thanks-but-you-re-wrong-610688067804
Bernie tells all climate skeptics who might consider voting for him to take a hike.
He should do this more often, travel around the country and show all these young high school students how intolerant the Democrats are of those who attempt to think for themselves.
90
Cruz may have sceptical views on AGW, but i think he comes across as far too much the religious nuttbagger to be acceptable when this race gets seriously mainstream.
34
The more avant garde among the anti-faith folk might want to believe that in USA there is a majority of “mainstream” anti-faith voters. This would not be correct. A faithful “nutbagger” will likely not be punished by voters for that alone. Even Bernie Sanders claims a belief. What Hillary claims is always subject to interpretation.
40
Not suggesting the mainstream is “anti-faith” at all. “Faith” and identification with religion is probably much more mainstream in the US than here. Just that they aren’t the kind of fanatics that Ted Cruz appears to be projecting as at the moment.
Which seems to be mandatory for pretty much any politician in the US or here in OZ.
I draw a distinction between someone having faith in a deity, and some of the more extremist positions and pronouncements fanatical nutjobs come out with. I dont see any way declared zealot POTUS (of any faith) would make the world anything other than much less safe.
23
So we know that the issue you make of his religion is a red herring, what specific pronouncements has Cruze made that would make the world less safe?
50
The world being less safe is kind of inherent in the concept of having a POTUS that does the machine gun bacon thing, on several different levels.
Couple that with with the whole “inspiration” from his shared imaginary friend, and this is someone who should have control of nuclear weapons?? Nope, very very silly that is.
15
It’s odd here about Ted Cruz.
He’s employed a similar plan to what was done once before.
1976 was going to be George Wallace’s last big chance to become President. The people were outraged by the confection surrounding Richard Nixon, and his second VP, now elevated to President, Gerald Ford, actually a good President, was considered to be just a seat warmer.
The people were baying for a good Democrat to come through, and the DNC fallback seemed to actually favour Wallace early on, which would really have been a disaster had he won and then gone on to become President.
Former Georgia Governor James Earl Carter went to all the early sites for the Caucuses, and he went there early, laying solid groundwork.
Come the Iowa Caucus, and Carter won relatively easily, and the whole of America said ….. WHO. (Actually Carter came second in Iowa, because Uncommitted got the most votes)
From there, he gained momentum, which after all, is about all Iowa really does, because it has so few Electoral College votes and Primary Votes for the purpose of the nomination process. The media then got solidly on board, and Carter went from strength to strength, and see here this was perhaps the first time that the Media went all out for a candidate at the Nomination primaries for the first time.
Wallace was a shot duck.
This is a good read: 1976 Democrat Primary Race
That eventual Presidential result was closer than a lot of people think, and IMHO, Gerald Ford would have made a good job of it had he won.
Tony.
40
excuse me if I stay right out of the political talk.
2 Feb: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: Offshore Wind Turbine Maintenance Cost Fiasco: “100 Times More Expensive Than A New Turbine Itself”!
A press release by Germany’s Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft reports how offshore North and Baltic Sea wind turbines need to be in operation for 25 years before they become profitable, but that they are prone to shortened lifespans due to rust from the harsh sea environment.
As a result the wind turbine installations need extra and very costly maintenance to ensure that they survive long enough. It’s turning out to be an insurmountable challenge…etc
http://notrickszone.com/2016/02/02/offshore-offshore-wind-turbine-maintenance-costs-100-times-more-expensive-than-new-turbine-itself/#sthash.V2l4G14b.dpbs
40
In any case Pat, when it’s all privatised like it has become, politics doesn’t really apply anymore.
More savage cuts in CO2 emissions due to financial Armageddon….. including the cuts in CO2 emissions performed by countries undergoing austerity and other forms of financial collapse..
“Oilpocalypse Wow! Stocks, Bond Yields Plunge As Bank Risk Soars”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-02/oilpocalypse-wow-stocks-bond-yields-plunge-bank-risk-soars
00
figures you can believe in?
1 Feb: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Two-fifths of Britons ‘unwilling to make any changes to tackle global warming’
Despite more than 80 per cent of Britons saying they are concerned about the impacts global warming will have on the UK, 40 per cent said they were not willing to make any personal changes to help address the problem, research by ***solar panel manufacturer REC found…
The REC survey, of 2,000 UK consumers, found that only 12.3 per cent of people were prepared to buy electric vehicles to replace their current cars.
The most popular action people were willing to take was to install solar panels on their homes, with 27 per cent of respondents saying they would consider doing so…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12135010/Two-fifths-of-Britons-unwilling-to-make-any-changes-to-tackle-global-warming.html
2 Feb: UK Express: MAPPED: Could YOUR town be flooded? Terrifying maps show impact of future sea level rises
Website Surging Seas maps the potential devastation to global cities if the polar ice caps continue to melt the way they are.
Although the researchers admit that their research is not certain, they state that the devastation to parts of the world would be irreversible by 2100.
This would happen if carbon emissions are put into the atmosphere at the same rate, causing the global temperature of the world to rise by just four degrees celsius
The website was created by scientists Benjamin Strauss and Scott Kulp of ***Climate Central in collaboration with Anders Levermann of the ***Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/640071/MAPPED-Could-YOUR-town-be-flooded-Swathes-of-UK-to-be-SUBMERGED-by-rising-sea-levels
20
more reliable research!
2 Feb: Oxford Mail: Andrew Ffrench: Climate change has made floods more likely says study
Climate change made severe storms and flooding in winter 2013 and early 2014 more likely, according to new research.
A team of climate scientists led by researchers at Oxford University found that greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of the once-a-century wet January in 2014 by 43 per cent, as the warming climate holds larger quantities of moisture, which leads to heavier rainfall…
Lead author Dr Nathalie Schaller of Oxford University’s Department of Physics said: “We found that extreme rainfall, as seen in January 2014, is more likely to occur in a changing climate…
***The research made use of the weather@home citizen-science project, part of Oxford’s climateprediction.net climate modelling experiment, to model possible weather for January 2014…ETC
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14246654.Climate_change_has_made_flooding_more_likely_according_to_Oxford_University_report/?ref=rss
10
So weather events from a couple of years ago is used as indicators of ‘climate change'(aka Global Warming), so I wonder what these events indicate?…
For more global warming weather see here
20
2 Feb: Financial Times: Homeowners grapple with problems of floods insurance
by Oliver Ralph and Andrew Bounds
Climate change is one of the reasons for the expected increase. Analysis led by researchers at Oxford university, published on Monday, blamed rising greenhouse gas emissions for increasing the risk of storms such as those that hit the south of England in 2013-14…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f04a50b6-c8fe-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html
10
1 Feb: Reuters: Growing cost of grid, green fees blocks UK power price cut
British households will not benefit from a fall in market electricity prices because their suppliers are facing rising costs elsewhere, such as green energy subsidies, which they say cancel out any wholesale price falls.
Electricity and gas prices traded on the open market have fallen 20-35 percent in recent months as milder-than-normal weather has curbed demand and falling commodity prices have added even more downward pressure.
Two of Britain’s ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers, E.ON and SSE, have so far announced price cuts of around 5 percent to household gas tariffs, but reductions to electricity prices are notably absent…
Cornwall Energy data showed the costs of government policies, which also include discounts for low-income households and payments for energy efficiency measures, on energy suppliers have risen to the highest level ever.
This means non-energy costs now make up as much as 60 percent of the average British electricity bill, up from 45 percent four years ago, according to Cornwall Energy data.
The main drivers here are the increasing costs to help finance building renewable energy plants, such as solar panels or wind farms.
Suppliers’ cost of the Renewable Obligation, the outgoing mechanism to distribute green energy subsidies, is 12.86 pounds per megawatt-hour, up from 10.57 pounds a year ago, Cornwall Energy said…
“These utilities are not selling electricity, they’re passing through renewable subsidies,” said Mark Freshney, utilities equity analyst at Credit Suisse…etc
http://www.reuters.com/article/britain-electricity-bills-idUSL8N15C4LK
20
pat:
￡12.86 per MWh is almost the wholesale price ex coal fired station in Australia.
10
Graeme No.3 –
thanx for the info.
00
tweaking!
2 Feb: Bloomberg: Jessica Shankleman: This Small Accounting Tweak May Boost Demand for Renewables
CDP, the consultant formally known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, will start giving greater recognition to businesses that buy renewable energy certificates, not just those who invest in building new wind farms and solar parks, said Pedro Faria, CDP’s technical director…
In the past companies, shied away from revealing how much renewable energy they buy through certificates, fearing they will be accused of “greenwash.” New CDP rules due to be published in the coming weeks will start rewarding companies that report on their purchases of renewable energy. In the future, they will get points for the amount of green energy they actually buy. CDP is eventually expecting to reward businesses that set a target for 100 percent renewable energy too, said Faria in an interview…
CDP’s tweak comes after a similar change last year by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which sets international standards on the correct way to calculate carbon footprints of products and organizations…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-02/this-small-accounting-tweak-may-boost-demand-for-renewables
2 Feb: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: UK revises down historical GHG emissions back to 1990
The UK has revised down its GHG emissions figures going back to 1990, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said on Tuesday, reporting that it emitted 6 million fewer tonnes of CO2e in 2014 than previously estimated.
The UK made the revisions based on new reporting and methodological guidelines from the UNFCCC and IPCC, which resulted in a downward shift in the national emissions totals ranging from 1.3% to 1.6% between 1990 and 2014…
http://carbon-pulse.com/15051/
20
pat:
Will they be repaying the tax / charges on the emitters?
10
Graeme No.3 –
lol.
00
2 Feb: National Post: Alexandra Heck: David Suzuki thinks Stephen Harper should serve prison time for ‘wilful blindness’ to climate change
For nine years, Canada had a Prime minister who “wouldn’t even let the term ‘climate change’ pass his lips!” the prominent environmentalist told Rolling Stone Australia.
Suzuki, longtime host of CBC’s The Nature of Things, is going to Australia in March to speak at WOMADelaide, a dance and music festival. In a Q&A ahead of the trip, he compared Harper to a negligent executive…
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-thinks-stephen-harper-should-serve-prison-time-for-inaction-on-wilful-blindness-to-climate-change
???not so beloved by the readers – see the comments:
2 Feb: RollingStoneAustralia: David Suzuki On the Pope and Not Being an Optimist
???Few scientists are more widely beloved by the public than the amiable David Suzuki…
1. The election of Justin Trudeau as Canada’s Prime Minister”
Suzuki: It’s a huge thing! We’ve had 10 years of a government [led by former PM Stephen Harper] that was so oppressive regarding environmental issues. We had to really carefully control what we said and had to worry about literally being called ‘enemies of Canada’. Which I know must sound familiar to you [laughs] – but you didn’t kick the party out! I know that [Malcolm] Turnbull is a different animal from [Tony] Abbott, but we got rid of the party as well as the party leader, so I feel ours is a brighter day. I was going to book a one-way ticket to Mars if Harper was re-elected.” 2. Giving jail sentences to former Prime Ministers”I really believe that people like the former Prime Minister of Canada should be thrown in jail for wilful blindness…
http://rollingstoneaus.com/culture/post/david-suzuki-encounter/3089
40
pat:
Thank you for the warning. I shall avoid WOMADelaide, but then I always do.
Suzuki might think throwing Harper in jail is a good idea. I think throwing Suzuki into jail would be better but I would be handicapped in that I think he should be given a fair trial first and not be punished just because he is a grubby, lying con man. If only Harper has won because I think there is no better place for Suzuki than Mars.
50
on topic.
lol. check jo’s list to see where ***Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich are placed among the Republicans!
1 Feb: Bloomberg: Zachary Mider: Koch Network Frustrated by Trump
Big money has so far failed to propel establishment candidates to the top of the Republican presidential field.
Inside a luxury resort in the California desert, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch has a grim message for his network of conservative donors. Rather than embracing his vision of a free-market paradise, he said, “the tragedy is, in my view, that America is moving farther and farther away.”…
ther members wrote seven-figure checks to super-PACs supporting ***Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. The spending failed to propel any of these candidates atop the polls…
Sometimes he sounds like a liberal. He warned that climate change’s worst effects would fall on people in poorer parts of the world. And of Bernie Sanders’ crusade against the power of corporations, he said, “a lot of what he says is true. The businesspeople who are successful haven’t become successful because they helped others improve their lives. It’s because they helped rig the system.”…
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-01/growing-koch-network-tries-to-shed-secretive-image
20
David Deming sums it all up neatly. Education failure.
http://newsok.com/article/5475578
20
Cruz 94% & Trump 85% – both will reel in the sceptic vote.
But reality is that “AGW/Climate Change” is currently not a big issue with voters – therefore Hillary’s obsession with it as an issue (6%) may well be her undoing, except in the Democrat traditional strong support areas like the N.E. States, California, Washington State etc. Likewise for the other leading Democrat contender Sanders (13%).
Cruz looks the best option to return the Republicans to power in November – and the good news is that he is a vocal “AGW/Climate Change” sceptic (94%) and has a good knowledge of the facts wrt this subject matter and hopefully will be able to “get through” to the majority of voters about this issue in the lead up to the November Election.
50
Ted Cruz has problems much like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Remember her? Thought not.
One issue for Cruz is his need in Iowa for evangelical voters. Those he got and beat Trump in the system of caucusing. Machele was liked by the Tea Party types and still did not do well in Iowa, the State she was born in and next door to Minnesota. Iowa is not the place to expect a good read on what the American voters will do. {I lived therein for 7 years.}
A very serious issue for both Bachmann and Cruz is that they are not well liked by the people that have to work with them. If you do a search with her name and +disliked, you can quickly get a sense of what many others thought of her.
Ted Cruz is disliked. Marco Rubio may benefit it Trump and Cruz damage each other. There are many who will move to Rubio.
10
I cant help but think that, yup, Rubio will be the focus (with GOP establishment blessing) until Trump and Cruz are out of it. But if Jeb Bush stays in (and he may have the war chest to do that) the establishment will try and ease Rubio out in favor of Jeb?
Will be interesting to see how it develops and if the GOP manages to install an electable candidate at the end of this process.
20
‘By the numbers, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, by a millimeter, won the Iowa caucuses. Still, the race for the top spot was not the big news of the night — or, in Clinton’s case, far into the following day, when the Associated Press finally called the race for her.
‘The real winners were Marco Rubio, with his remarkably strong third-place finish, and Bernie Sanders, with his virtual tie.’
Washington Post
10
don’t want to spoil jo’s new Bob Carter/Monckton thread with this:
2 Feb: MurrayValleyStandard: Elle Vince: Palmer wind farm proposal heads for court
Four appeals have been made to the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court following the Mid Murray Council Development Assessment Panel’s (DAP) decision to approve the $700 million development in December.
Appellants include Australian Football League chief executive officer Gillon McLachlan, who has a family property near Mount Pleasant, and a group of about 100 people known as the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Landscape Guardians.
The group’s chair Tony Walker, who lives at Eden Valley, said they had a strong case to present in the ERD Court considering they weren’t given enough time during the DAP hearing.
“The people who put in submissions opposing the proposal were not given a fair share of time in order to put their position clearly before the panel,” he said.
“Ninety-six people who are represented by Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Landscape Guardians got 18 seconds each, we expected to get one or two minutes…
Low frequency noise, visibility and reduced aerial protection in the event of a bushfire were among the group’s major concerns.
On Monday, Mr McLachlan met with Trustpower and the Mid Murray Council for a preliminary conference to decide the court proceedings, while the other three appellants are scheduled to meet on February 15…
“The ultimate issue is that they don’t want the wind farm there.”…
http://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/3701290/appeals-blow-in/
earlier details:
30 Jan: Adelaide Advertiser: Ben Hyde: AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan to fight massive Mid Murray wind farm development in court
Mr McLachlan has appealed against the approval of the $700 million wind farm, to feature 114 turbines standing up to 165m high dotted along the ranges between Palmer, Tungkillo and Sanderston.
The appeal is listed against wind farm developers Trustpower, the Mid Murray Council, Environment Protection Agency, the Planning Department and the Environment Minister.
A preliminary conference is scheduled to be heard in the Environment, Resources and Development Court by Commissioner Lolita Mohyla at 3.30pm tomorrow…
Mr Walker said those opposed to the development were prepared for a fight. “We’ve been fighting for almost five years (and) it’s a fight that could go on for years, depending on who blinks first,” he said. “(But) it’s worth fighting for.”
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/afl-chief-executive-gillon-mclachlan-to-fight-massive-mid-murray-wind-farm-development-in-court/news-story/8468f850b3da6faa3af78e2050e58d33
20
3 Feb: EJ Insight: Wind farm project poses new threat to Hong Kong aquatic icon
A planned wind farm in the Pearl River estuary is raising concern over its potential impact on the pink dolphin, Hong Kong’s aquatic symbol nearly driven to extinction by overdevelopment.
Southern Offshore Wind Power Development Co. Ltd., a unit of state-owned China Southern Power Grid Co.Ltd., is pressing ahead with the project despite its own environmental studies that show the waters in question are home to the endangered animal and other vulnerable species, Apple Daily reports.
Environmentalists are worried that the wind farm, about 10 kilometers off a marine sanctuary in Lantau and Soko Islands, will drive the animals from their habitat once construction starts.
They are already under threat from the ongoing Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai Bridge project which has been blamed for their shrinking population.
Southern Offshore Wind Power plans to build 37 wind turbines on a 300-hectare site near the Pearl River’s Lingtingyang estuary…
http://www.ejinsight.com/20160203-wind-farm-project-poses-new-threat-to-hong-kong-aquatic-icon/
10
I don’t if you-all are aware of a leftist who saw through the global warming thing, Alexander Cockburn, but since his death, his site has given in to the hysteria –
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/02/no-holocausts-without-hitlers-but-what-about-climate-change/
30
Yeah, this sucks. He might have won either way, but we’ll never know because of Ted Cruz’s lies.
Of the three lies, the one against Donald J. Trump was actually the least concerning. True, his campaign lied about the state of Trump’s position on Hillary Clinton and abortion 6 months ago, but at least that dirty lie was against A CANDIDATE.
The other two lies—those threatening, deceptive mailers and claiming, during the caucus, that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race in order to steal his voters, disenfranchising them—was deceptive fraud against Republican VOTERS.
Just disgusting of Ted Cruz. He deserves to lose his Senate seat, and does not, in any way, deserve to be the President. He won a Pyrrhic victory.
P.S. The mystery of why people who work with Ted Cruz end up hating him has been SOLVED.
P.P.S. With all due respect, Jo, I cannot share your enthusiasm at Cruz’s so-called “win.”
[Christoph, you are sounding like a broken record and sounding like a felony was committed. Further you have concluded that Cruz is guilty without possibly knowing the whole story. Enough, you’ve already expressed your opinion on the matter clearly.] ED
05
It’s a pertinent, newsworthy story, and in particular that take on it. The GOP frontrunner is, in fact, describing it as illegal … and is calling for the caucus results to be overturned or a new election held. I realize you have a stake in Cruz’s success, but he’s disgraced himself and possibly seriously wounded his political future, his viability in this race, and his value to our shared cause.
There are actual laws against electoral chicanery— including felonies. Would a lie about a candidate qualify? Probably not. Would a lie designed to deceive the voters into miscasting their votes for another candidate be illegal? One man—the frontrunner (and also an outspoken AGW skeptic)—says so.
15
Its sort of weird.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/03/trump-i-will-probably-sue-because-ted-cruz-cheated-in-iowa/21307315/
01
4 Feb: SMH: Jessica Gardner: CSIRO puts 350 staff on notice in Netflix-style culture revamp
Researchers at the country’s peak science and research body will be pushed to pick up more digital skills or move on as part of a sweeping cultural change driven by former venture capitalist Larry Marshall…
Mr Marshall said he had been guided by Silicon Valley-style policies put in place at nimble technology companies, and added he was “absolutely” inspired by the thinking of Netflix’s former chief talent officer Patty McCord. “I’m very much a student of that,” he said…
Mr Marshall used the example of climate change to show how CSIRO needs new skills as its science progresses and its strategy changes.
“We have spent probably a decade trying to answer the question is the climate changing,” he said.
“After Paris that question has been answered. The next question now is what do we do about it. The people that were so brilliant at measuring and modelling [climate change], they might not be the right people to figure out how to adapt to it.”…
More to come
http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/csiro-puts-350-staff-on-notice-in-netflixstyle-culture-revamp-20160203-gml8k3.html
4 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO set to swing jobs axe: reports
Fears that some of Australia’s most important climate research institutions will be gutted by the Turnbull government have been realised with deep job cuts for scientists to be announced to staff later today.
Fairfax Media has learnt that as many as 110 positions in the Oceans and Atmosphere division will go, with a similarly sharp reduction in the Land and Water division…
It is understood just 30 staff will be left in the Oceans and Atmosphere unit and they will not be working on climate issues related to basic data gathering. Remaining staff will focus on mitigation – cutting greenhouse gas emissions – and adaptation to climate impacts rather than the gathering of basic science.
‘Shock and horror’…
‘Jaw-dropping’
Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, said the scale of the cuts was “jaw-droppingly shocking”…
Adam Bandt, the Greens science and research spokesperson, said Malcolm Turnbull was “an innovation imposter” if he allowed the cuts at CSIRO to go ahead…
More to come
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html
00
3 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Green Climate Fund holds Cape Town ‘crisis’ talks over future
Crisis talks on the future of the UN’s flagship green investment bank are taking place in Cape Town this week after key donors expressed concern it lacks focus and direction.
The US, UK and Germany – who contributed more than half of the fund’s initial $10 billion capitalisation – flagged their fears last December in a series of submissions.
That followed a heated November board meeting, in which the first set of projects were approved despite misgivings over the process…
Once the GCF had money in 2015, the main aim was to have a few projects to show at the Paris climate talks, rather than develop the deep foundations needed for a Fund with its ambitions…
“Part of challenge last year was the fact Paris was around the corner, and you saw that playing into the board meetings, which became a lot more political,” said Amerasinghe.
“They were under pressure to deliver before Paris… even if it was imperfect it was better than nothing,” says Ari Huhtala, deputy CEO at the London-based Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)…
Other developing countries, championed by civil society, argue that by courting partners like Deutsche Bank and HSBC, the fund is already straying from its original mandate to be a partner to the world’s more needy and vulnerable…ETC
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/03/green-climate-fund-holds-cape-town-crisis-talks-over-future/
00
3 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: EU-funded deforestation clampdown in Africa ‘flawed’
Expanding protected areas in DR Congo and Liberia could blow donors’ budgets, displace hundreds of thousands of people and fuel conflict, says NGO
Major donors are working with African governments to cordon off vast tracts of forest like it’s 1872.
Germany, Norway and bodies like the World Bank are using a model dating back to the creation of the US’ Yellowstone National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia.
That might work for uninhabited wilderness, an NGO that campaigns for land rights told Climate Home, but not for these populous tropical forests.
Andy White at the Washington DC-based Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) warned that hundreds of thousands of people could be resettled and lose their livelihoods under the proposals.
In a series of reports published on Wednesday, the organisation raised concerns about these states’ main contribution to tackling climate change…ETC
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/03/eu-funded-deforestation-clampdown-in-africa-flawed/
26 Jan: RRI Annual Review of the State of Rights and Resources 2015-2016
http://www.rightsandresources.org/en/closing-the-gap/
00
Daily Mail & UK Express (both considered by the CAGW mob to be somewhat sceptical) seem to be full of alarmism of late.
both are carrying this nonsense from an ***INSURANCE COMPANY today!
3 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Richard Gray: Our disappearing world: From a melting glacier to waterfalls of FIRE, list reveals nine natural wonders and popular attractions destroyed by climate change and tourists
The list of nine ‘lost’ attractions range from a glacier in Bolivia to a lake in Cambodia and the Great Barrier Reef
Each has fallen victim to dramatic changes in their local climate or have been destroyed by human activity
‘Lost sights’ list has been drawn up by ***insurance firm Staysure to help highlight the risk of more sites disappearing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3423275/Our-disappearing-world-melting-glacier-waterfa
00
3 Feb: Phys.org: Cause for hope: Secondary tropical forests put on weight fast
“Regenerating secondary forests could play a critical role in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation” said Daisy Dent, a research associate at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama and a lecturer at the University of Stirling. “However, previous studies have tended to focus on single sites. This study brings together data from many sites that span the Neotropics. We illustrate that secondary forests are highly productive and resilient.”…
More information: Lourens Poorter et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature16512
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-secondary-tropical-forests-weight-fast.html
3 Feb: Phys.org: In the Southern Ocean, a carbon-dioxide mystery comes clear
Twenty thousand years ago, when humans were still nomadic hunters and gatherers, low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere allowed the earth to fall into the grip of an ice age. But despite decades of research, the reasons why levels of the greenhouse gas were so low then have been difficult to piece together
New research, published today in the leading journal Nature, shows that a big part of the answer lies at the bottom of the world. Sediment samples from the seafloor, more than 3 kilometers beneath the ocean surface near Antarctica, support a long-standing hypothesis that more carbon dioxide was dissolved in the deep Southern Ocean…
More information: Covariation of deep Southern Ocean oxygenation and atmospheric CO2 through the last ice age, Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature16514
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-southern-ocean-carbon-dioxide-mystery.html
00
Its only weather, but the MSM don’t think it newsworthy.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4277
00
full url for daily mail’s Insurance co story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3423275/Our-disappearing-world-melting-glacier-waterfalls-FIRE-list-reveals-nine-natural-wonders-destroyed-climate-change-tourists.html
00
‘AGL is pulling out of coal seam gas in Australia, ceasing its exploration and winding down or selling its operational gas fields.
‘Plummeting oil and gas prices were cited by AGL as one of the main reasons for the decision in its announcement to the ASX on Thursday morning, as well as lower than expected production volumes from one of its fields in NSW.’
Guardian
00
4 Feb: BusinessInsider: Chris Pash: AGL is getting out of gas and aiming for ‘fossil-fuel free’
The company has decided that gas production and exploration are no longer a part of its core business because of volatility in commodity prices and long development lead times.
It announced a $795 million impairment, about $640 million after tax, against gas assets.
Part of the shift in policy means that the Gloucester coal seam gas project, which faced intense opposition from rural communities in New South Wales, will not go ahead. The Wilderness Society called on Santos to follow AGL’s lead and drop its coal seam gas plans in NSW…
There is no change to AGL’s commercial or retail gas activities.
AGL last year announced it is is moving toward a fossil-fuel free business and won’t be building any more coal-fired power stations…
The company is working on a vision of the near future where energy markets will be transformed by decentralised products and services, including solar panels, battery storage, connected appliances and smart grids.
Today AGL says it’s confident it has enough gas for its residential and small business customers following a contract with the Gippsland Basin Joint Venture and the planned expansion of the Eastern Gas Pipeline…
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/agl-is-getting-out-of-gas-and-aiming-for-fossil-fuel-free-2016-2
4 Feb: Australian: John Conroy, Business Spectator: Coal to dominate Australian mining deals
The coal sector is expected to lead restructuring and divestment moves in mining in 2016, an EY report says…
But EY — in its report, “A new normal, or the bottom of the cycle? Mergers, acquisitions and capital raising in mining and metals, 2015 trends and 2016 outlook” — said uncertainty around the timing of a recovery in commodity prices would see miners, particularly in coal, come to the negotiation table.
“There are some excellent top tier coal assets in Australia that are likely to change hands this year. Cost cutting, productivity measures and the benefit of the falling Australian dollar helped delay decisions in 2015 but the weight of corporate debt in an environment of commodity price uncertainty will bring people to the table this year,” EY Oceania mining and metals transactions advisory leader Paul Murphy said…
“High quality Australian coal is well positioned to fill the growing energy demand in South-East Asia. Those that understand that, and the cyclical nature of the mining sector, are looking at this opportunistically,” Mr Murphy said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/coal-to-dominate-australian-mining-deals/news-story/09ff051f897dab5b68d5ab2dcb47f6dc
00
News Break
CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it.
“It’s inevitable that people who are gifted at measuring and modelling climate may not be the same people who are gifted at figuring out what to do about it how to mitigate it,” he said.
“Some of the climate scientists will be able to make that transition and some won’t.”
ABC
00
3 Feb: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: UK energy crisis deepens as SSE plans early plant closure
Fears for UK energy supplies next winter after SSE confirms it plans to shut most of its Fiddler’s Ferry coal-fired power plant in April, pulling out of Government subsidy contract to keep running until 2019
SSE has announced plans to shut most of its Fiddler’s Ferry coal-fired power plant in April, wiping 1.5 gigawatts of power capacity from the UK grid and worsening the looming energy crisis next winter.
The energy giant said it intended to shut three out of four units at the loss-making Cheshire power station, reneging on a Government subsidy contract to keep them running until 2018-19 and putting 213 jobs at risk.
The move, which the Telegraph revealed SSE was considering last week, was condemned as “extremely disappointing” by the Government, which sought to reassure households the lights would stay on.
“We will continue to work alongside National Grid and Ofgem to take whatever additional steps are necessary to protect our energy supply,” a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said…
John Musk, analyst at RBC Capital Markets, warned UK margins would now be “critically tight for next winter” and forecast this would lead to “extremely volatile” spot power prices…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12139151/UK-energy-crisis-deepens-as-SSE-plans-early-plant-closure.html
00
3 Feb: Herald Scotland: Victoria Weldon: Trade union warns of pressure on UK energy
A trade union has warned that the UK’s energy capacity is facing further pressure after industry giant SSE announced the closure of a major coal fired power station…
Michael Macdonald, of the Prospect union, said: “Today’s news means the loss of 220 highly-skilled jobs at the station and the equivalent number among local contractors. This will have a devastating impact on an area.
“It also exacerbates difficulties in keeping the lights on given the way the energy market is incentivised and the loss of Ferrybridge, Eggborough and Longannet in Scotland.
“This is yet more evidence of the need for a rapid rethink of UK energy policy. Capacity auction results so far have seen large thermal generation lose out. We are losing the jobs and key skills that we will need for future generation.” …
http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14251375.display/
3 Feb: Liverpool Echo: Alan Weston: Union demands “rethink” following shock announcement of Fiddler’s Ferry closure plan
Prospect – which represents 21,000 scientists, engineers, managers and other professionals in the sector – called for a rethink on energy policy after the shock announcement.
It said the closure would mean more employment misery for the North West and a further squeeze on UK capacity.
Fiddler’s Ferry produces enough electricity to power two million homes. One of the four units has a contract with National Grid to provide back-up power for next winter, but the future of the other three could be in doubt…
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/union-demands-rethink-following-shock-10833737
00
There is only one region where a PRISTINE surface station data set exists.
Here is a graph of that regions surface and satellite data.
http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png
A big higgledy, as one would expect of different data sets, but the satellites are sure doing a pretty good job . ! 🙂
Anyone with a bit of knowledge can find the data and reproduce this graph (don’t forget to convert the USCRN anomalies to Celsius.)
00
Massive Model Failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOTHBgaij7c
Dr John Cristy has a few words to say.
10
If Cruz’s dishonest antics were designed to boost Rubio, he’s succeeded.
Ted Cruz, however, has slipped from second to fifth place in New Hampshire polling.
I’m simply pointing out that I am far from the only one who found Cruz’s methods off-putting. Whomever ultimately wins, I hope they have a sensible view of climate science, naturally … and some integrity.
00