Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic, and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life — a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past.

Iran’s Bomb And The US Effort To Abort It

Just getting the mad mullahs in Tehran to talk about uranium and its uses required that the USA make a number of huge concessions. Most of those surrenders were unmatched by Iranian responses. The economic sanctions had been very effective, however, burdening Iran with crushing expenses, so in time, Iran agreed to discuss the dispute.

US moves and Iranian reactions are partially detailed in an article in the Wall Street Journal that you should read. Unfortunately it is now behind a pay wall, but a search engine might tell you it has been reprinted by some weblogger.

Summarizing: the USA has given in to a number of Iranian demands. Forced to go to desperate lengths to obtain relief, Iran made minimal moves that vaguely suggested cooperation, and has asserted itself as if it were in the position actually occupied by the USA.

This bizarre result is a prime consequence of the USA’s Utopian foreign policy: convinced that talks will lead to peace, the Obamites take Iran’s gasps of agony to be proof that a meeting of the minds is imminent.

The clear evidence is otherwise. Iran continues to advance its nuclear weapons development at the fastest pace possible, and there is no mechanism in place or envisioned that will change that policy.

As long as Obama is willing to make whatever concessions he feels will allow him to continue communication with the lunatic rulers of Iran, peace will remain a dream. When Iran has its bomb, it will attempt to destroy Israel. It will also willingly accept whatever follows — including the deaths of most Iranians. Heaven is, after all, the goal, and the only sure way for Muslims and their families to reach it is martyrdom.

While not everyone agrees with The One Leader, the politicians and delusional policy wonks who run the US Department of State assume the above truths can be “negotiated” into irrelevance. One can only wonder which capital is less sane, Tehran or Washington.

A bulletin

This just in: “President Barack Obama said he is prepared to walk away from a nuclear deal unless Iran accepts a tight monitoring regime as negotiators extended talks for a week….” All that work, all those hints that he wanted any kind of deal that would get him safely out of office before the Middle East literally blows up…and now he’s willing to go back to Square One? It’s extraordinarily hard for this newsletter to believe The One Leader has suddenly been overcome by rationality.

China Cracks Into US Government Files. So…What?

0. The personnel files were not “hacked”, they were cracked. “Hacked” means improved. “Cracked” means broken into; think of a safe being cracked. Use the correct term.

1. The cracked files will aid Chinese efforts to blackmail US officials. Records of background investigations of both employees and unsuccessful applicants were cracked.

2. The records also list “confidential” (that means secret) informants who pass “classified” (that means “secret”) information to the USA. China is very interested in identifying those people. The USA can no longer expect any success from its attempts to recruit foreigners to betray their governments.

3. Those with US security clearances must now be very closely monitored, lest they do embarrassing things. Recall Petraeus. The result: Uncle Sam’s security overseers will grow in number and potency, and ultimately, the privacy of everyone in the USA will suffer.

4. The Chinese coup is irrefutable evidence that the USA was not doing what it could and should to secure its information. That task is the responsibility of the administration, and the Obamites failed — utterly and disastrously. Failures that thoroughgoing and that consequential necessarily reflect on the highest level of leadership.

Carbon Dioxide: Recapitulation And Update

The secret

It’s a simple question: how much of the CO2 in the air is there because of human activity? Getting the answer is not nearly as easy as it should be. In fact, many websites create an impression of candor and completeness by providing lots of data — without telling the visitor the one fact that matters most. This site, for example, does not provide a percentage, though it says that “…CO2 accounts for 77 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions”.

After a good deal of searching, this newsletter located a relevant source:

According to David J. C. MacKay, the burning of fossil fuels sends seven gigatons (3.27 percent) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, while the biosphere and oceans account for 440 (55.28 percent) and 330 (41.46 percent) gigatons, respectively… “Burning fossil fuels, in contrast,” writes MacKay, “creates a new flow of carbon that, though small, is not canceled”.

What matters here is not whether this figure is utterly precise, but that it was so hard to locate. One might think that the AGW cult’s allies would be trumpeting headlines such as, “We contribute X% of the CO2 in the atmosphere!” Why is that not happening?

Trivializing the need for full disclosure

It’s always a challenge to determine the motives of a cult, but perhaps it is correct to say that the alarmists are afraid people will reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) if even approximately correct figures are available. AGW doctrine claims that even an infinitesimal increase in humanity’s production of CO2 is highly destabilizing. Accordingly, the public is tacitly enjoined to be undisturbed by numbers that, on examination, seem too small to be consequential. Warmers imply that the climate is amazingly delicate, and that the slightest human activity disturbs it profoundly.

The cult’s implicit claim is extreme. Look again at the figures.

First, assume that at present, there are 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere (the actual figure today might be a bit lower or a bit higher). That means that for every one million units of the air, four hundred are CO2. What percentage is that? .04%. That’s right: four one-hundredths of one percent. That’s CO2 produced by all sources, human and natural.

If the best estimate is that 3.27% of all atmospheric CO2 is of human origin, that means the human contribution of CO2 to the air is .04 times .0327, which is .001308% of the total atmosphere. That’s just over thirteen one-thousandths of one percent.

The alarmists appear to think the climate is not just “sensitive”, but preternaturally sensitive.

Where is the error? Possibly here: the Gore-Hansen Cult might explain the unnatural behavior as a version of the trendy “Butterfly effect“. Actually that popular misconception is irrelevant because Lorenz was studying systems that could be fully described by a short string of symbols. Climate, on the other hand, is notoriously difficult to model because of its literally infinite complexity. (Yes. Recall that chaos theory argues that the coastline of an island is infinite, though limited; each increasingly precise measurement of the land is different from the one before, and the level of precision can always be elevated.)

A problem with the fixation on carbon dioxide

The informed observer can easily deal with the claimed hypersensitivity of climate to minute changes in its chemistry. CO2 has a logarithmic (rather than linear) effect on temperature. That means that if, for example, adding one thousand tons of CO2 to the air has produced a temperature increase of X degrees, to get another increase of X degrees, one must add substantially more than one thousand tons of CO2.

This graph displays CO2’s logarithmic impact on atmospheric heat.


See also this very informative article and this post for more explanation. (There is more here, as well, but it is unabashedly technical.)

The logarithmic nature of CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is typically mentioned only in skeptical circles. Warmers generally dismiss it hastily as either false, or not worth understanding. How? Remember that anything can be doubted or denied.

Of course all plants would appreciate lots of CO2, as would farmers. Greenhouses often pipe in CO2, raising the level to as much as 1,200 ppm.

There. Now you have facts climate alarmists do not want brought up.

Unsorted concluding observations

For climate skeptics, this is hilarious and important: Mark Stein talks about his legal problems — and more.

Here’s the short version of some recent testimony on AGW before a Congressional committee. There is some interesting back-and-forth. The long version is here.

The Warmers hope you will forget that climate is always changing, whether humans are present or not — and the AGW cult denies that those changes are principally due to variations in solar radiance. Some scientists are trying to understand clouds and the impact cosmic radiation has on them, as well, but it’s too early to discuss those influences on climate.

Well. If you are worried, look at this video. In spite of the fact that it’s about five years old (and was linked in Nr. 283 of this newsletter), its facts are still solid.

Then there is this newsletter’s claim that the Warmers constitute a cult. If you disagree, see what Michael Crichton had to say about the subject, beginning at approximately six minutes. By 1:06:49, he has made his point — though the video continues with an audio reading of part of Crichton’s State of Fear (information here).

Because it’s important, this video was linked in Numbers 373 and 384 of this newsletter. It summarizes “global warming” in 2015.

Finally: get ready for the Modern Maunder Minimum…!


“We have no room for hating, so we have to forgive.” Unfortunately you probably won’t be able to read all of Peggy Noonan’s column in theWall Street Journal (of June 27, 2015). It’s commentary on how one inspiring act provoked a ripple of appropriate responses. Try a search….

Does seeking the US presidency make you speak first, and think later? Perhaps. Consider Governor Jindal’s babble about junking the supreme court. What was he thinking? Then there is Hillary’s inaccurate claim that she disclosed “all” her work-related e-mail messages — was that the lie it appears to be?

Speaking of puzzling nonsense — why did Anonymous go wildly off the rails? Or is this an instance of a “false flag” message?

This is perfect: the collision of marriage, government, and Liberty is brilliantly discussed in a brief video. Do not skip it!

To understand the implications of this US supreme court decision, you need some awareness of the issues surrounding US “administrative law”. The the book review in Nr. 359 of this newsletter can help with that.

Today’s imponderable: would Hillary be politically better off if her husband were a homosexual?

This documentary is too long, but for US citizens, it’s fundamentally important. It deals with governmental practices that are at best highly questionable, if not simply fascistic.

How can Islamofascists fail to see the potential of drones? Reports like this suggest there could be crippling problems for air travel…to mention just one of many possibilities.