Many Thanks To Rich

My sincere thanks to Rich Horton for posting here at the Crabitat. Between long hours and some really bad luck, it has grown increasingly difficult to get a post up here. Rich is keeping Blue Crab Boulevard alive right now. Thank you, Rich.

About that luck thing. Last night I fully intended to post after fixing my modem problems, but I got home, cooked a fast dinner and the lights went out. We finally got power back a few hours later when it was almost time to go to bed. Tonight I have some plans with my wife, so cross fingers that I will get back posting here tomorrow.

Gaius

Zakaria: “You Can’t Fight The Arab Desire To Destroy Israel, So Why Try?”

Or something to that effect:

CNN: Why is the American decision not to work with Hamas such an issue in the Arab world?

Zakaria: The U.S. appears hypocritical to much of the Arab world. The U.S. has been trumpeting the importance of democracy to Arab countries world and has insisted on elections in Gaza. When Hamas, a faction they did not support, won, many Arabs felt the U.S. did not accept the victory and has attempted to strangle what they see as a burgeoning democracy.

CNN: How much of a difference does this make?

Zakaria: By the U.S. isolating Hamas from commerce and contact with the outside world, we are strengthening the forces of fundamentalism and extremism in Gaza. By all accounts, Hamas is stronger now than it was six months ago.

The implication that Hamas is just another political party, like working with Labour or the Tories in the UK, is morally reprehensible but par for the course for the elitists of the day.  The idea that "supporting democracy" means we have to be agnostic or indifferent to the espoused goals of extreme political groups is simply not worth considering.  There is no way to "work with" such groups that does not also legitimize and normalize their vicious aspirations.

This Nails It

I've been saying this for awhile (see here and here), but Michael Gerson has also noticed the fraud that is the notion that Barack Obama is some sort of moderate. Obama: A False Moderate?

It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue where Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform — leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

I have not heard of a single Democrat who has a similar beef with Obama. Maybe this is because Obama has so often only managed to muster up the courage to vote "Present" on anything even vaguely controversial, but it certainly isn't because he's so damn moderate.

The New Scientific Method: When You Don’t Have The Data, Fudge It

The headlines are the stuff of biblical plagues: Expect More Droughts, Heavy Downpours, Excessive Heat, And Intense Hurricanes Due To Global Warming, NOAA

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research has released a scientific assessment that provides the first comprehensive analysis of observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories. Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

I've said it once, I'll say it again; Ohmygod…we are all going to die!

Or not. 

The thing is, wasn't Anthropogenic Global Warming (TM) supposed to be an ongoing process were are now caught in the middle of, and not some theoretical possibility in a far off future?  If that is true we should have seen some evidence of these increases in extreme weather.  Well, what is the evidence in the report for that?  Turns out there isn't any, as Roger Pielke has helpfully outlined:

The report contains several remarkable conclusions, that somehow did not seem to make it into the official press release.

1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.

2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.

3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation (pp. 46-50, pp. 130-131), there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).

4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms

5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.

6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

(Pielke has extended commentary on each of these findings, and you should head over to Prometheus to read it all.)

So what scientific evidence do we have that Global Warming is leading to extreme weather events?  Well, we don't have any, not in the sense of actual observed weather events.  Shouldn't that give someone pause?  Normal people probably would taken aback by the lack of evidence.  But we are not dealing with normal people. 

"Well the things is," we are told, "we scientists have these absolutely fabulous computer models which predict future extreme weather events." 

How do you know they are accurate?  Have you used them to replicate the known incidences of extreme weather of the past? 

"Well, no, we haven't been able to do that exactly.  But we are totally confident we can predict the future." 

Why is that? 

"Because theses are computer models. You can't argue with computers!  They are, like, totally high-tech."

The amazing thing is, the press is largely swayed by this argument.  The complete lack of evidence doesn't bother them in the least.  We generally have names for things people believe despite the absence of supporting evidence.  "Science" isn't one of the names.