Coming Soon to Climate Change: The “Rewind” Button?

As is well known—except to readers of the major media, which means most of the public—someone hit the “pause” button on global warming about 15 years back. We’ve covered some of the theories behind the pause several times here on Power Line (this post is the most recent, with links to the previous installments), including the leading theory that the “missing heat” is not missing at all, but is going into the deep ocean.

Never mind that climate orthodoxy told us incessantly that it was the atmosphere we could expect to warm up rapidly (settled? did you say settled?) or that the deep ocean theory was highly convenient because we lack enough data with which to validate it. It keeps the climatista camp stoves burning (so to speak), which is the important thing.

Some evidence to support the deep ocean hypothesis is dribbling in, such as in Science magazine this week, but with the caveat that the “pause” may last another decade or longer. Here’s how The Telegraph reports the story:

The “pause” in global warming may last another decade before surface temperatures start rising again, according to scientists who say heat is being stored in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

Global average surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively stable since the late 1990s, in a trend that has been seized upon by climate sceptics who question the science of man-made warming.

A new study, published in the journal Science, suggests that a natural cycle of ocean currents has caused the phenomenon by drawing heat from shallow waters down almost a mile into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

The cycle naturally produces periods of roughly 30 years in which heat is stored near the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, leading to warmer temperatures, followed by roughly 30 years in which it is stored in the depths, causing cooler surface temperatures, it suggests.

Well okay then. Oscillations in ocean behavior? Who would’ve thunk it? Actually Mark Steyn did thunk it:

I felt vaguely that I’d read about this climate cycle – natural variability, 30-year cooling periods, 30-year warming periods – somewhere before …oh, years ago, it was. But for the life of me I couldn’t recall which eminent climate scientist had advanced the proposition. And then I remembered. It was IPCC lead author, Nobel Laureate and Fellow of the Royal Society Professor Mark Steyn just over five years ago:

If you mean the argument on “global warming,” my general line is this: For the last century, we’ve had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.

Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?

Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there’s a slight cooling trend again. And I’m not fussed about it either way.

I’m tempted to start making book on when we’ll stop hearing about the global warming “pause” button being pushed, and when we start hearing about the global warming “rewind” button being pushed. Maybe around next March 1 if the predictions of another hard winter come to pass. (Yeah, yeah, I know, a hard winter in north America doesn’t actually mean anything about the global climate, but when you dine out on every warm weather anomaly and strong storm as proof of catastrophic climate change, then you deserve what you get when local circumstances become . . . inconvenient. Heh.)

The Week in Pictures: Strategery Edition

Yeah, go ahead and mock George W. Bush for his “strategery.” At least he had one—however it was pronewnced.  The Chicago Tribune‘s John Kass thinks Obama’s “killer rabbit moment” is surely nigh upon us. May I just point out that Power Line was way ahead of Kass on this one—more than once. But since Obama golfs instead of fishing—playing the angles instead of angling you might say—I’m predicting he’ll get swallowed by a giant Dune-like sandworm emerging from a sand trap out on the course.

By the way, when Jimmy Carter came down from Camp David in 1979 after retreating there for over a week to get his head together, reporters noticed he was parting his hair on the other side of his head, fueling rumors that Carter was suffering nervous exhaustion or something.  I think Obama’s fashion-felony tan suit is a signal that he really has packed up his presidency. (“You are not the president of Sears,” said Esquire magazine—ouch!)

War Strategery copy

Obama's national securuty copy

Going Solo copy

Obama Gold Stooges copy

Obama Sand Trap copy

Behad Golf Club copy

Obama's Evil copy Bush v Obama copy

Who Crashed Economy? copy IRS Drives copy

Tax King copy Taxes My Way copy

Tax Rate copy

Johad Works Both ways copy

Hillionaire copy

Climate Shaming copy


A special feature: our news media at its finest:

Flying Bugs copy Fed Gun Raid copy Diana Alive copy Sewer Smelss copy Teen Pregnanacy copy New Attorney copy Morgue Shooting Spree copyMan, I can’t wait for the Hollywood adaptation of this story:

Gay lesbian copy

Chick Assuses Sexism copy

Vox copy

Meth Progress copy

Doing the ice bucket challenge before it was cool.

Doing the ice bucket challenge before it was cool.

I thought this was unconstitutional?

I thought this was unconstitutional?

Coffee 3 copyHot Coffee copy

Giraffe Coffee copy

Jabba the Weigth Watcher copy Vader Inhaler copy

Spock Ticked copy

H.P. Lovecraft Meets Thomas Kinkaide

H.P. Lovecraft Meets Thomas Kinkaide

Han Solo copyAnd finally, by popular request. . .

Hot Cardinale2 copy

Obama explains to the very rich

At a fundraiser in the home of an occasional Obama golf partner and former president of UBS Investment Bank, Obama spoke before an audience paying $15,000 a couple to bask in his aura.

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They want to hear more Obama, and they can afford his policies.

Speaking before a friendly crowd, Obama delivered real value. He achieved new depths of inanity. He actually said this without provoking howls of laughter. (The very rich are different from you and me). Justin Sink reports in the Hill:

“I can see why a lot of folks are troubled,” Obama told a group of donors gathered at a Democratic National Committee barbecue in Purchase, N.Y.

But the president said that current foreign policy crises across the world are not comparable to the challenges the U.S. faced during the Cold War.

Acknowledging “the barbarity” of Islamist militants and Russia “reasserting the notion that might means right,” Obama, though, dismissed the notion that he was facing unprecedented challenges.

“The world’s always been messy … we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,” he said, according to a White House pool report.

Priceless. And there is more:

And there is more:

“If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,” said Obama.

The president acknowledged that conflicts in the Middle East posed difficulties, “but it’s been challenging for quite a while,” he said.

“We will get through these challenging times just like we have in the past,” Obama added.

Obama to the contrary not withstand, he presents a crisis with a new challenge. In crises past, we had Lincoln and Roosevelt to see us through. In the Cold War, we had Truman to set the course with the strategy of Containment and Reagan to top it off. Now we are revisiting killer rabbit territory, but Carter awoke from his reveries. Obama still seeks to align us with the mullahs of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood and their friends elsewhere.

Obama does not understand the nature of the challenge that oppresses us. He is obstinate in his view of the world. He is not about to learn anything. We have never confronted a world crisis with an ideological numbnuts at the helm.

Hope! We can hope for a “strategy,” or we can hope that things will start looking up in about two-and-a-half years.

UPDATE: Via Hot Air, more context for the quotes here. Peter Baker brings the news for the New York Times readership in “Seeking to ease worries, Obama says the world has always been ‘messy.’”

Criticism of Obama is OK, But We Draw the Line at Unfairness to Barney Fife

We have long been critics of Barack Obama, sometimes harsh ones. But we have always tried to be fair. So when unfairness comes to light, we feel obliged to object to it.

That happened yesterday when Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert lit into Obama for his incompetent foreign policy. The Daily Mail has the story:

Lawmakers are fuming over President Barack Obama’s admission on Thursday that his White House lacks a strategy for dealing with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in Syria….

And as House and Senate members piled on with sharp criticism, a former senior aide to a retired defense secretary told MailOnline that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are “seeing red” and “spitting nails” following Obama’s candid admission.

“They’re losing confidence in their mission,” said the long-time Pentagon insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “When the president doesn’t know what direction to point people in, all his advisers can do is guess at what he wants. That’s not good.”

Those criticisms are entirely justified. Pretty much everyone who isn’t a paid Democratic Party operative, or an unpaid operative like a reporter or editor, sees Obama’s paralysis in the face of ISIS and similar terrorist groups as a disastrous failure.

Most of what Congressman Gohmert said about Obama’s foreign policy was right on point:

“I don’t know where he’s getting his information,” said Gohmert. “Maybe it’s CIA Director [John] Brennan who said earlier this year that ‘No, these guys don’t want a caliphate.’

“He must have his head buried in a hole somewhere on the first green.”

That is a fair and rather mild comment on Obama’s ineptitude. But this is where Congressman Gohmert went astray:

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told Fox News on Thursday that Obama articulated “a pitiful foreign policy, and Barney Fife is in charge.”

This is, I think, deeply unfair to Barney Fife. Those who watched Andy of Mayberry many years ago recall Barney as the nervous, seemingly ineffectual deputy sheriff who could never do anything right. And yet…there was more to Barney than that. He may have been confused at times, but he was no dummy. And he may have been nervous, but he was no coward. Take this clip, for instance:

To put Barack Obama in the same category as Barney Fife is deeply insulting to Fife. Therefore, we must protest. Has Barack Obama ever shown the courage and moral clarity that Fife exhibits in that brief video? No.

So: if you want to criticize the Obama administration, go right ahead. They have it coming. But leave Barney Fife out of it: we should be so lucky as to have him for a president.

Advice on Strategy From Dilbert

President Obama can’t come up with a strategy to deal with ISIS. It’s just so…complicated. Here’s an idea: how about if we kill them?

I don’t suppose Obama will go with that one. But hey: even Dilbert has a better grasp of strategy than our clueless president:


OK, it may not be optimal, but it’s better than anything the Obama administration has come up with!

Imminent Terror Warning: Is It Time For a Strategy Yet? [Updated]

It was revealed today that Islamic terrorist groups are operating in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and that federal agencies have issued a warning of an “imminent terrorist attack on the border”:

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms.

So, I don’t know, not that there’s any hurry or anything, but maybe the Obama administration should start thinking about a strategy to defeat ISIS?

The administration is obviously stung by President Obama’s repeated admission, yesterday, that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS. Today White House spokesman Josh Earnest went on MSNBC to explain that, sure, we have a strategy–God only knows what it is–but we are waiting for a few final pieces to fall into place. Or something like that. Apparently the military is the holdup. Whatever. Earnest can’t sell that even on MSNBC; Chuck Todd looks on with amused contempt, then cuts away for an interview of sorts with someone named Savannah Guthrie, apparently a higher priority:

Never have we seen such a clown show. But when the next terrorist attack strikes, no one will be laughing.

UPDATE: The Department of Homeland Security and the White House have denied that they are aware of a threat from ISIS originating in Mexico. Judicial Watch stands by its sources.

From the land of sky blue waters

Sometimes it seems that Minnesota is ground zero in the war against terrorism. The problem is that we’re on the wrong side. This week we learned that two men identified as Minnesotans had died fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and now is such a time. Reporting from ground zero, we pause to ask what is happening here?

One of the two — Abdiraaman Muhumed — was a Somali Muslim. He is one of several such “Minnesotans” to have departed Minnesota to fight with Islamic terrorists. The other reported to have died — the inauspiciously named Douglas McAuthur McCain — was a former Minnesota resident by way of Chicago and a Muslim convert. He was a friend of another such Muslim convert — Troy Kastigar. McCain and Kastigar were classmates at Robbinsdale high schools. Their path to Islam is not clear, but it undoubtedly originated in Minnesota, from which they joined several other “Minnesotans” who following a similar path to jihad. McCain reportedly moved in to live Kastigar in 2000-2001. One infers that McCain followed Kastigar’s path, Kastigar enlisting in al Shabab and McCain in IS. Among the common denominators were their friendship in Minneapolis, their conversion to Islam and their pursuit of jihad.

According to the Star Tribune, they both converted to Islam in early adulthood. The Star Tribune also reports without explanation that Kastigar “went by the nickname Abdirahman.” Before he blew himself up for jihad, Kastigar appeared in the al Shabab recruiting video featuring jihadists from Minnesota. The New York Times circles around McCain and gets approximately nowhere.

This much we have on good authority. The Minnesota connection to the jihad phenomenon “began in 2007 with the young Somali men traveling from Minnesota to Somalia,” according to the director of the local FBI Chief Divison Counsel quoted by ABC News. “In Somalia, it started as a nationalistic call…[but] we’ve now seen where some individuals perhaps are not interested or not inclined to travel to Somalia, [they] start to branch out to other hot spots around the globe, obviously Syria being among them.”

“Nationalistic” is a euphemism. For “nationalistic,” read “religious.” And the problem is growing. To borrow the cliché invoking dots, Michael Walsh connects them here.

As I have noted here several times, and I am repeating myself now, Minnesota is home to the largest Somali community in the United States. We know amazingly little about them, probably because we are afraid to ask the relevant questions. We know they are mostly Muslim — we can see the hijabs, we are familiar with the many local controversies to which their faith has given rise over the past 10 years — but are they loyal residents or citizens of the United States? In the conflict between the United States and the Islamist forces with which we are contending, whose side are they on?

Only three years ago a terror trial in Minneapolis concluded with a raft of guilty verdicts that raised serious questions of loyalty. The two defendants were women convicted of charges including conspiracy to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization, of providing support, and of lying to the FBI. The “terrorist organization” was al Shabab.

The ringleader was not exactly remorseful after the jury returned its guilty verdicts. According to a contemporaneous AP report, she stood before the judge and stated through an interpreter: “I am very happy.” She added that she knew she was going to heaven. As I noted here at the time, she may be going to heaven, but she’ll be stopping off in prison first. As for the rest of us, she advised: “You will go to hell.” The feeling was mutual.

I have been told by law enforcement authorities that the investigation leading to the 2011 trial has consumed the local FBI office for the past seven years. The investigation also resulted in a string of guilty pleas (at least one such plea dating back as far 2009) involving local Somali men supporting al Shabab. Investigators believe at least 21 Somali men have left Minnesota to join al Shabab. We’re a little concerned the that the departed jihadists might choose to return to Minnesota and continue the jihad.

What about the rest of the local Somali community? Members of the local Somali community materialized at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis to support the women at trial, but not because they held the charges to be unfounded. The members of the local Somali community appearing at the courthouse never bothered to cite any evidence of innocence. The question was beside the point. No voice expressly spoke up on behalf of law-abidingness or loyalty to the United States.

In the National Affairs essay “The Muslim-American muddle,” Peter Skerry expressly raised the question of loyalty in the context of America’s Muslim population in general. The essay is by turns infuriating and illuminating, but at least it licensed inquiry into the question.

Indeed, Skerry took the question seriously and provided evidence supporting the concerns of “alarmists,” noting the striking absence of any acknowledged tie to the United States on the part of important Muslim organizations. Skerry contrasted “complacent elites” with “alarmist populists.” I would place Skerry on the complacent side of the divide and myself on the alarmist side, although Skerry placed himself (of course) in the middle as the voice of reason mediating between the two camps. But Skerry concludes the essay on what I would characterize as an alarmist (i.e., realistic) note.

Along the way, Skerry seemed to me to treat several basic issues (including assimilation) in a conclusory and question-begging fashion. He cited the naturalization of Muslim immigrants and their involvement in American politics, supporting Democrats, as factors supporting (I will say) complacency. Yet the two defendants in the Minneapolis terror trial were both naturalized citizens. And CAIR has formed a fruitful alliance with Democrats going back to its days as a Hamas front group (Skerry suggests that those days are behind it). Skerry rightly observed: “It is astonishing, given th[e history of CAIR], that the mainstream American media should routinely describe CAIR as ‘a Muslim civil rights organization.’”

Skerry failed to raise the question whether the immigration spigot should remain open while we sort out the serious issues that he addressed in his essay. The question didn’t even seem to cross his mind. In any event, Skerry’s essay badly needs to be updated. In the meantime, we can only try to be clear about what is happening here.