Sarah Palin right again. Let Allah sort it out. A Limerick.

With Russia and Cuba in Syria

it’s prophesy time in Assyria.

Sarah said, without doubt

“Let Allah sort it out”.

That’s vision. She is our Valkyria.*

* (from Old Norse valkyrja “chooser of the slain”)

Allah_sort

From her Facebook
LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

– Sarah Palin

 

21 questions for Hillary Clinton. (Age adjusted for the audience)

 

Hillary, Hillary, where have you been? 

“It’s none of your business, for I am the queen.”

Hillary, Hillary, what did you see?

“I saw heads of states so that they would fund me.”

Hillary, Hillary, what did you do?

“No evidence found that there was quid pro quo.”

Hillary, Hillary, what did you say?

“It’s old news by now, won’t you please go away.”

Hillary, Hillary, when did you lie?

“Benghazi for starters, I have a supply.”

Hillary, Hillary, what did you write?

“Deleted my e-mails to give you my spite.”

Hillary, Hillary, why do you run?

“Entitled I am, it’s my turn in the sun.”

Hillary, Hillary, what do you eat?

“Genetically modified food ’til I bleat.”

Hillary, Hillary, what’s with your hair?

“Blond coloring hides I’m an old, graying mare.”

Hillary, Hillary, why did you speak?

“To take all the cash from the poor and the weak.”

Hillary, Hillary, do you love life?

“Not if they’re unborn, abort with a knife.”

Hillary, Hillary, why did you cry?

“I was broke and in debt, it was hard to get by.”

Hillary, Hillary, what was your fee?

“For the students, two millions, I’m cheap, don’t you see?”

Hillary, Hillary, what was the deal?

“Our Uranium to Russia, Bill had a great spiel.”

Hillary, Hillary, why all the lies?

“Maybe, just maybe, I’m Lord of the flies.”

Hillary, Hillary, what’s classified?

“I’ve no idea, I’ve nothing to hide.”

Hillary, Hillary, what is the day?

“Bloody Tuesday it is. I’m a witch. Hip, Hooray!!”

Hillary, Hillary, what’s classified?

“I really don’t know, I have nothing to hide.”

Hillary, Hillary, are you contrite?

“If I say ‘I am Sorry’, it makes all wrongs right.”

Hillary, Hillary, are you for real?

“My focus group gives me that warm, homespun feel.”

Hillary, Hillary, are you confused?

“Often I am, but I’m never amused.”

Obama on leadership, COP21, the pause, warmest year on record, the facts.

Asking Obama about his comments a year ago that America is the indispensable nation and that America leads, CBS 60 minutes interviewer Steve Kroft commented that Vladimir Putin “seems to be challenging that leadership” with his actions in Syria.

Obama’s response was revealing about how he sees the role of the United States as a global leader. “If you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership,” Obama replied. “My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy.”

Leadership? Obama seems to have an unique angle on leadership. He claimed in his  April 18 weekly address to the nation, : “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

This will be one of his main arguments going into the Climate Conference COP21 in Paris in December.

How accurate is this statement?

Besides from the fact that we are not even close to the Minoan warming period 3000 years ago, or the Roman warming period 2000 years ago, not even the Medieval warming period 1000 years ago it is way off the mark on other facts as well. The figure below is from the Greenland Ice Core probings and is one of the best gauges for temperature records the last 10000 years. 2014 was still one of the 1000 coldest. Note also that the inter-glacial maximum temperature was around 6000 years ago and we are well into the bog-building face where normally Carbon would be deposited in the bogs and trigger the next ice-age. Burning Coal slows down the cool-down.

Greenlandgisp-last-10000-new

We are now experiencing an 18 year 8 month pause in the warming occurring since the little ice age. This is an undisputed fact if one looks at the satellite data.

18yr8monthspauseHowever, if one looks at the data generated by the surface stations it looks quite different. There has been a substantial rise in global temperatures since measurements began, and indeed, this century is so far the warmest on record.

ncdc.global.history.0910So, who is right? The official satellite measurements or the official surface temperature measurements?

The satellite measurements are done without any corrections, but the instruments are frequently calibrated to ensure no temperature drifts occur over time.

On the other hand, the United states Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is the custodian of temperature data from the 48 contiguous states. As temperature stations are dropped and others are added they try to do a homogenization step to present the most probable past temperatures for the 48 states. This leads to temperature adjustments to past readings. They sincerely try to do the best job possible to ensure the adjustments are without bias of any kind. If we look at the next picture they did a near perfect temperature adjustment of past temperatures as a linear function of CO2 concentration.

tempC02(Credit to Tom Heller who did the analysis). This means that all homogenization was performed assuming the temperature adjustments had to conform to the IPCC model.

In other words, by assuming the model is right you adjust the data until they fit the model. Using the adjusted data you then claim this proves the model is right.

Climate science?

Ted Cruz, the Sierra club, cooking and burning, the pause, and the 97% consensus.

During a hearing of a Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday Oct. 6 regarding regulation and minorities, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is running for the Republican nomination on a platform that includes rejection of mainstream climate change political science, seized an opportunity to show off his debating skills and knowledge of facts.

In the video below Cruz is questioning Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club, and an epidemiological-spatial analyst with the New York State Department of Health.

Senator Cruz asked if the Sierra club President was familiar with the term “the pause”. After conferring with his technical expert Mr. Mair said it referred to the pause in global warming during the 4o’s.

Sen. Cruz tried to educate Mr Mair it referred to the 18 year pause in global warming as presented by the satellite data. To which Mr. Mair answered “we concur with what 97% of scientists say” and that “the earth is cooking and heating up and warming.”

Senator Cruz wanted to know if the Sierra Club would change their beliefs about man-made global warming if they were shown facts that disproved it. Cruz didn’t get an answer. Just the usual, “we concur with what 97% of scientists say.”

So, Where did that 97% of scientists consensus come from?

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and scientist engineers with specialty control theory and thermodynamics. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma. The responses were still not satisfactory, so the subgroup was further cull down to those who in the past years had written multiple peer-reviewed papers on climate science. This yielded the 77.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The survey was taken in 1999, after a rapid temperature rise due to an unusually strong el nino, and nearly everybody had switched side from believing in global cooling in the 60’s to global warming, but even with that only 90% thought global temperatures had risen since the little ice age.

The second question is a little misleading for the average person. To a scientist significant means it is measurable outside the margin of error, not that it is major or even large, just that it should not be ignored. We can all agree that human activity such as clear cutting forests and turning the area into asphalt jungles will change the local climate. This is called urban heat islands. Likewise changing forests into agricultural lands tends to heat up the land by up to one degree. Air pollution tends to lower temperatures and is considered bad, adding CO2 tends to increase average global temperatures, the question is by how much and if that is good or bad.

Notice the second question did not deal at all with CO2, nor did it say anything about dominant contributing factor. Yet it is often cited in conjunction with “the 97%”

The other interesting question was: What is “the pause”

As presented by satellite data there has been no significant warming in the last 18 years and 8 months, as is seen in the following picture:18yr8monthspause

And the satellite data keep showing us this even though we are having a rather strong el nino. Without it the temperatures would be in decline.

For a discussion on “the pause” vs. “Warmest year on record” see: https://lenbilen.com/2015/10/12/obama-on-leadership-cop21-the-pause-warmest-year-on-record-the-facts/

See also: https://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/

Source for “the 97%” : http://sppiblog.org/news/that-97-solution-again

Verse 63 of the Obama impeachment song: Obama threatens gun confiscation though executive order.

Verse 63 of the Obama impeachment song: Obama threatens gun confiscation though executive order.

(As if sung by Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”).

Legal guns I’ll take away

so terrorists can have their sway

I will jump into the fray

You Christians, all you can do is pray.

The complete Obama Impeachment song: https://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/

It is o.k. to bring home the bacon. All meat is clean. A Limerick.

News item: According to guidelines published by CoExist House, a US and UK-based interfaith group, corporations are being urged to provide a less hostile environment for arriving Muslims and other religious minorities. In so doing, they should refrain from serving ham and cheese sandwiches and other pork related dishes in the company cafeteria, and refrain from using words and phrases that suggest any connection with these products.

Also: The federal Bureau of Prisons has banned pork products from being served in the 122 prisons it runs nationwide, The Washington Post reports.
The ban started with the new fiscal year, which began October 1, and is attributed by the bureau to prisoners not liking pork.

You know Armageddon’s at hand

when “Bring home the bacon” is banned

But God said: Kill and eat

all is clean that is meat.

I’m free from the law’s old command.

Yes, we are free from the law with its dietary restrictions. The source is from the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 11 verses 4 thru 10:

Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’

“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10 This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

Then it was repeated in the Counsel of Jerusalem, which interestingly enough was chaired by Jesus half-brother James, not Peter.

In Acts 15, verses 7-20, Doctor Luke records:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]
18     things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

We should never shy away from proclaiming our freedom: As the Apostle Paul mentions in his letter to the Galatians 5:1:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.