Wednesday, July 30, 2014

WHICH VICTIM CARD IS LENAR WHITNEY PLAYING NOW? CAN YOU GUESS?

You've probably seen this Washington Post story: David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report interviewed a Louisiana Republican named Lenar Whitney, who has a shot at winning a House seat this year, despite the fact (or, given that she's from Red America, perhaps because of the fact) that she's made a loopy video declaring that global warming is a hoax ... and the interview upset her so much that she ran out, unwilling to answer what would seem (given her position on the political spectrum) to be perfectly reasonable questions:
... As a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, I’ve personally interviewed over 300 congressional candidates over the course of seven years...

But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday.

... She clearly relishes poking Democrats in the eye, cites Minnesota's Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) as a political role model, and takes kindly to the nickname "Palin of the South."

... she has sought to boost her profile and appeal to conservative donors with a slickly made YouTube video entitled "GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX" (84,000 views so far). In the video, Whitney gleefully and confidently asserts that the theory of global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of mankind" and that "any 10-year-old" can disprove it with a simple household thermometer.

... when I pressed Whitney repeatedly for the source of her claim that the earth is getting colder, she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs.

To change the subject, I asked whether she believed Obama was born in the United States. When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a "Palin-style interview."

It was the first time in hundreds of Cook Political Report meetings that a candidate has fled the room.
I've learned from World Net Daily that after the interview took place, Whitney took to her Facebook page to defend herself.

What did she say? Well, this:
What The Cook Political Report printed about me is an outright lie. I left the interview with Dave Wasserman, several questions later, after he asked me if I was a "birther".
Gosh, I can't imagine why he'd ask that of someone who believes the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up the lack of climate change.
It was obvious, from the onset of the interview, that Wasserman had planned to jump me simply because I am a Conservative Woman and liberal shills like Dave Wasserman want to destroy us.
And what conclusion does Whitney draw from this?

Wait for it....
That's the real #WarOnWomen
Yes -- Wasserman asked a person with crazy ideas if she has other crazy ideas, at a time when she's putting herself before the public in order to win public office, which obligates her to tell the public what her ideas are, and when the questioning becomes unpleasant, Whitney concludes that it does so because Wasserman hates women.

Right. Got it.

And it's not just Whitney saying this. The Daily Caller -- you know, the site edited by Tucker Carlson, the deeply committed feminist who once called Hillary Clinton "castrating, overbearing, and scary" -- is running with that explanation as well:
Conservative Female Candidate Fires Back After Analyst Calls Her 'Frightening'

The campaign of a conservative woman running for Congress in Louisiana is firing back after an analyst of the non-partisan Cook Political Report called her "frightening."

"It's just liberal elites hating conservative women," charged Chris Comeaux, the communications director for Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney.....
I'm sure there's already universal agreement throughout Wingnuttia that misogyny was Wasserman's prime motive.

Now, I enjoy the nutty global warming video quite a bit:



But I also enjoy this video, in which Whitney argues that sealing the U.S.-Mexico border ought to be ridiculously easy:



My favorite line? Go to 0:36. It's priceless:
If we can secure the border between South Korea and North Korea, why can't we do the same between Mexico and Texas?
Yes, she actually said that. She actually compared securing what is probably the most heavily militarized border on earth, on one side of which is the most repressive dictatorship on earth, with securing a border ten times as long, which accommodates large numbers of tourists and others with legitimate business, and large amounts of commerce, on a daily basis.

Oh, she's gonna be a hell of a congresswoman if she wins.

21 comments:

The New York Crank said...

I take umbrage – umbrage I say! – at the line, "when I pressed Whitney repeatedly for the source of her claim that the earth is getting colder, she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs."

This is a gross twisting of the facts. She didn't "freeze up," as the thermometer she was holding showed. And the only reason she couldn't cite scientists and news sources on cue is that the string coming out of the back of her neck broke.

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

duffandnonsense said...

The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) published a graph showing that "Global Land & Ocean Temperature Anomilies, Jan - Dec, from 2001 to 2013 showed a drop of -0.5C.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013-percentury.png

I would add that this drop occurred in spite of the fact that the world's two biggest CO2 polluters, China and, er, the USA(!) continue to pump the stuff in ever-increasing amounts.

So whether or not the global temperature is increasing or decreasing it looks as though CO2 has very little to do with it.

David Duff

Steve M. said...

Two years? You think that's enough data for a long-term trend? You know even less about science than the rest of your lying, Koch-funded friends.

Victor said...

Well, to give her at least some credit, at least she didn't run and hide in the nearest bathroom, like Scottie Brown did.

duffandnonsense said...

No, 13 years, actually - Jan 2001 - Dec 2013! (Don't worry, I'm not much good at sums either!)

And, I would add, 13 years during which, according to everyone from Al Gore up (or down, according to taste) temps should have *risen* alarmingly because CO2 emissions went way above what was expected after Kyoto.

Dark Avenger said...

Hottest June on record:

If you aren’t currently a quickly evaporating puddle on the floor, than congratulations! You’ve just survived the hottest Jun ever since records started being kept in 1880. That according to climate data released Monday from the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which found that the worldwide average temperature over land and sea in June 2014 was 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees.

The record was driven largely by warmer than normal ocean surfaces. Last month saw the highest temperatures on the water for any June on record, and the highest departure from the average for any single month ever. Average global land surface temperatures for June 2014 were also the seventh hottest June ever recorded.


Thanks for proving J.S. Mill correct yet again, Duffster.

Steve M. said...

So you're citing NOAA statistics that back your thesis, Duff, quoting from the energy industry's favorite climate blog, but when NOAA says things really are bad, that same blog says, "Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?"

Pick those cherries, Duff!

duffandnonsense said...

DA, I confess I have felt like one of your 'quickly evaporating puddles' for the past couple of weeks because even 'over here' we have been enjoying some glorious 'global warming' and I have a tan to prove it - photos by special request only!

However, as my 'Warmer' friends(?) keep telling me, one month is the equivalent of a piss in the ocean when it come to climate stats.

However, you provide me with another opportunity to confess. The graph I linked to starts in Jan 2001. However, the year 2000 was rather exceptionally cool and therefore if you start from there it looks as though global temps *increased* by +0.04C.

What a difference a year can make!

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2000-2013.png

duffandnonsense said...

Well, Steve, at least I have provided you with a choice - see above - so you can start the graph in 2000 and 'enjoy +0.04C or in 2001 and shiver with -0.05C.

You choose!

Dan Pangburn said...

Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. A simple equation, using only them, very accurately explains the reported up and down measurements since before 1900. The coefficient of determination, R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95). The equation provides credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.
The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, corroborates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.

The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured. R2 > 0.9 is very accurate.

The calculations use data since before 1900 which are official, accepted as valid and are publicly available.

Solar cycle duration or magnitude, considered separately, fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of solar cycle anomalies, gives excellent correlation. A solar cycle anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years.

Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.

Search AGW unveiled for the method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037).

duffandnonsense said...

Thanks, Dan, that was, er, really useful but do you think you could see your way clear to telling me whether I am going to freeze or fry over the next 10+/- years that being an optimistic guesstimate of my remaining life span!

Also, may I be a little naughty and suggest that there is a third "driver" of average global temperatures, that is, the alterations and adjustments made to the basic data by so-called climate swots!

Steve M. said...

do you think you could see your way clear to telling me whether I am going to freeze or fry over the next 10+/- years that being an optimistic guesstimate of my remaining life span!

Right, because that's all that matters -- your comfort. Not the long-term state of the planet.

Roger said...

do you think you could see your way clear to telling me whether I am going to freeze or fry over the next 10+/- years

Most likely autoerotic asphyxiation will render the question moot.

Dark Avenger said...

DA, I confess I have felt like one of your 'quickly evaporating puddles' for the past couple of weeks because even 'over here' we have been enjoying some glorious 'global warming' and I have a tan to prove it - photos by special request only!

You can come over here where it gets 100+ degrees duff, (normally, not due to global warming) so that you can prepare yourself for the coming 10 years.

Might want to update your fall/winter ensembles as well:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140730094043.htm

That's why Kodra and his adviser Auroop Gan­guly, a cli­mate change expert and asso­ciate pro­fessor in Northeastern's Depart­ment of Civil and Envi­ron­mental Engi­neering, decided to take a dif­ferent approach in their paper recently pub­lished online in the journal Sci­en­tific Reports, pub­lished by Nature. Their work was per­formed in Northeastern's Sus­tain­ability and Data Sci­ences Lab­o­ra­tory run by Ganguly.

What they found may sur­prise some: While global tem­per­a­ture is indeed increasing, so too is the vari­ability in tem­per­a­ture extremes. For instance, while each year's average hottest and coldest tem­per­a­tures will likely rise, those aver­ages will also tend to fall within a wider range of poten­tial high and low tem­perate extremes than are cur­rently being observed.

This means that even as overall tem­per­a­tures rise, we may still con­tinue to expe­ri­ence extreme cold snaps, said Kodra, who earned the Col­lege of Engineering's out­standing grad­uate research award in 2014 and is now leading data ana­lytics efforts at Energy Points, an inno­v­a­tive Boston area startup.

That is an impor­tant point in the ongoing effort to accu­rately inform the public about cli­mate change. "Just because you have a year that's colder than the usual over the last decade isn't a rejec­tion of the global warming hypoth­esis," Kodra explained.

duffandnonsense said...

"Right, because that's all that matters -- your comfort. Not the long-term state of the planet."

Spot on, Steve, because for the last 75 years I have grown sick and tired of all these 'experts', or, 'Ehrlichs' as I call them, telling me that 'the end of the world is nigh' - unless I do what they say! Sorry, but I think I know best what is best for me so just leave me alone and I promise not to tell you what's best for you!

"autoerotic asphyxiation"! I tried that once but the paper bag kept bursting and it wasn't the least exciting.

Sorry, DA, but phrases like "will likely", "will also tend", "we may still" makes me suspect that those two might actually be lawyers given the number of 'get out' clauses!

Off to bed now. Us oldies who despite the horror warnings have managed to 'dodge the bullets' into old age need our beauty sleep.

Steve M. said...

Sorry if we've failed to arrange the planet to your exact specifications, you miserable narcissist.

Dark Avenger said...

This means that even as overall tem­per­a­tures rise, we may still con­tinue to expe­ri­ence extreme cold snaps, said Kodra, who earned the Col­lege of Engineering's out­standing grad­uate research award in 2014 and is now leading data ana­lytics efforts at Energy Points, an inno­v­a­tive Boston area startup.

Duff, on the other hand takes off his shoes when he wants to implement advanced computational tools.

duffandnonsense said...

Nah, DA, even if I could bend down that far my specs would fall off and I wouldn't be able to see 'em to count 'em!

Dark Avenger said...

And you can't go barefooted on your Hoveround, now can you?

Dan Pangburn said...

Duff - I don't expect to either freeze or fry within my expected years (also optimistic another 10) either, but I'd keep a warm coat handy.

I'm aware of the fiddling with the data. I average the reporting agencies to minimize the effect.

Spreading the truth won't be easy. A whole lot of paychecks depend on the 'swots' continuing to deceive the world.

duffandnonsense said...

Quite so, Dan, my gut feeling after reading fairly widely on the subject for the past ten years or so is that we're in for a cool period. How cool? Ah, well, you'd have to ask the few sensible swots for the answer to that one!

David Duff