Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Washington Post, Climate Skeptic Will Happer will be part of a team President Trump is assembling a White House committee to scrutinise wild climate change claims being presented by government agencies.
White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national security
By Juliet Eilperin and Missy Ryan
The White House is working to assemble a panel to assess whether climate change poses a national security threat, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post, a conclusion that federal intelligence agencies have affirmed several times since President Trump took office.
The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would be established by executive order, is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director. Happer, an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University, has said that carbon emissions linked to climate change should be viewed as an asset rather than a pollutant.
…
In late November, Trump dismissed a government report finding that global warming is intensifying and poses a major threat the U.S. economy, saying, “I don’t see it.” Last month, his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, acting administrator Andrew Wheeler, testified that he did not see climate change as one of the world’s pressing challenges.
According to the NSC discussion paper, the order would create a federal advisory committee “to advise the President on scientific understanding of today’s climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States.”
…
Read more (paywalled): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/20/white-house-climate-change-national-security-panel
I saw Will Happer speak when I attended a Heartland conference. My guess is when this new committee becomes official, government employees who have made dodgy climate claims about national security in government reports will have a lot of questions to answer.
Actions have consequences.
Hardly an independent and impartial person, is he?
Long track record of paid employment from fossil fuel industry.
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
If he’d been paid by Greenpeace you’d all be complaining… I don’t see he’s any less compromised.
Like Al Gore?
You have nothing, griff.
The fact you cite Desmog shows that.
Happer is a well recognised non-partisan SCIENTIST, unlike many of your favourite AGW priests.
So someone that has been a long standing part of the government or an academic that has relied on government grants for their professional existence would be more impartial? Obviously NOT! At least Happer has helped to produce something useful which is quite the opposite of what useless people like you desire to be seen appointed to government positions.
Happer has long-standing government experience. He’s a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, in which he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991-93, he also served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, during the elder Bush administration.
He is a real scientist of great achievement, unlike the GIGO computer gaming mathematicians and programmers of “climate (anti-)science”.
In other words, you can’t find anything against the man, so you are attacking one portion of his income stream.
Hardly an independent and impartial source – is it, Grift?
He is a bright and shinning example of independent and impartial thought.
He has a long track record of doing what is right, regardless of income.
Per your highly biased blog reference, he has received less than $25K.
Per the attempted Greenpeace set-up, he told them he didn’t want money … that they could donate to someone else … that what he does is a labor of love. See today’s hit piece on him per the NYT … they don’t go as low as you did with respect to the attempted Greenpeace set-up.
OK, I’ll bite, Griff. Anyone employed or paid by Greenpeace and other liberal NGOs, academia, governments, etc. are compromised?
It’s a reaction to this :
In February 2018, Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence, in written testimony to the Senate Intelligence
Committee, warned of “abrupt” climate change, and stated, “The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate … are likely to fuel economic and social discontent — and possibly upheaval — through 2018.”
Changes at DNI anybody?
There you have it – “climate” is a threat to national security.
As a wag said : It’s be a great country, if only they roofed it, never mind the wall.
I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.
So if anyone votes twice or more then we pick it up.
Perhaps our simple labour intense system compared to the USA machine system has merit.
MJE
The integrity of any system is no better than that of the people running it.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin
The US has voting by mail for weeks in advance. This provides an estimate about how much the ballot boxes need to be preloaded with ‘correct’ votes.
Fresh immigrants are more likely to vote as desired, so a lot of effort is spent on getting them on the list.
Invitations for moved or dead people can be held back and given to persons better able to use them.
Boxes from ‘wrong’ voting neighborhoods sometimes get ‘lost’ in transit.
The mailed votes (officially) only get opened and counted if they can conceivably change the result. So as long as the result is close, extra ‘correct’ ballots can be manufactured at a later date and exchanged (at night) with ‘faulty’ ones.
In Florida, one County ‘forgot’ to call in the number of mailed votes, giving them the option to reprint unlimited numbers. They kept finding more and more until ‘wrong’ votes from Northern Florida could be ‘balanced’ out and the desired candidate won.
Quite right. That’s why Dimocraps violently resist any photo ID or in fact any modernization/upgrade of voter identification and confirmation. Keep it so primitive that fraud in its many forms is kept easy. Any other modern country has better voter ID/confirmation. The US “system” is kept primitive by Dimocrap/marxist design.
but we register to vote
theres a huge outcry against people doing that in usa as far as i see..
confusing cos they all have a soc sec number thats proof enough to use i would have thought, and cross referencable to address/state to prevent fraud.
we only get our own mail vote forms sent out
I gather people in usa can get their hands on MANY forms at a time if they pick them up
negates one person one vote utterly.
and yes evoting is insane for corruption risks
though some twit is pushing it here
Some states require government issued photo ID so a social security card/number doesn’t suffice. There are some very dubious procedures used in some states in connection with these rules. For example, The state of Alabama issues free voter ID cards to voters who need them. These photo IDs are issued by driver license bureaus. However the state closed driver license bureaus in eight of the ten counties with the highest percentages of nonwhite voters, and in every county in which blacks made up more than 75 percent of registered voters!
The N Carolina photo ID requirement was struck down by the US Court of Appeals which found that it targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision”!
Similar to the history of compulsory voting in Australia, wasn’t it introduced for white folk 60 years before it was extended to aboriginals?
However the state closed driver license bureaus in eight of the ten counties with the highest percentages of nonwhite voters . . .
According to the governor, the closures were due to budgetary issues, not in an effort to restrict voting. Furthermore, DMV offices were not the only place one could obtain a photo ID:
“Alabama requires every voter to have a valid photo ID to cast a ballot. While a driver’s license is the most common form of ID in the state, Bentley said anyone without a driver’s license can go to any county register’s office and have a photo ID made and the closing of the DMV offices will not change that fact.”
https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/gov_bentley_says_decision_to_c.html
Thus, voting rights were not restricted by the DMV closings.
It seems the only “violation” the Obama administration could cite AL with was the following, from the DOT (note, “Transportation,” not “Justice”).
“Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin in their programs and activities. Both the state of Alabama and its law enforcement agency receive federal assistance from the DOT.”
It would seem, then, the best one could argue on the available evidence was a specious argument that AL was attempting to restrict blacks from driving automobiles.
Even supporters of the notion that the closures were racially motivated appear to contradict themselves:
“Maybe the governor didn’t intend to target minority citizens with the closures, but ultimately his intent is beside the point.”
https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html
The N Carolina photo ID requirement was struck down by the US Court of Appeals . . .
The 4th circuit is well-known to be left-leaning, so it’s no surprise voter ID would be struck down there. Not surprisingly, the astute voters of N. Carolina have decided the US Court of Appeals was incorrect in its opinion:
https://www.wral.com/details-of-nc-s-new-voter-id-requirement-still-need-to-be-worked-out/17977588/
Voter fraud is nonexistent in the US https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth.
Donald Trump is wrong about voter fraud and almost everything else. He may be right about CAGW but in my view it’s a just by accident because opposition to CAGW happens to be convenient for other agenda items.
Garbage – it’s just been set up so it’s hard to catch.
Phil. begs to differ with you.
Regardless, there have been hundreds of cases where it’s been proven. The problem is that the way the system is set up, proving fraud is almost impossible, unless someone brags.
Fortunately liberals aren’t too bright and they like to brag.
There is no rational reason to oppose checking voter ID’s unless your desire is to protect cheating.
MarkW says: “there have been hundreds of cases where it’s been proven.”
…
Here’s one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/
….
Got any more?
Once again, so what. Are you so desperate to find something disagreeable to say that you are reduced to that?
BTW, thank you for helping to support the case that I’ve been making.
Yes sir, there’s actually quite a few. Check them out here:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
These are confirmed cases, by the way.
Hey sycomputing, per your “Heritage” site (which we all know isn’t biased (LMAO))….they count registration fraud in their count…….that isn’t “voter fraud.”
…
Now, got an unbiased source?
. . . they count registration fraud in their count…….that isn’t “voter fraud.”
Hey there Dave, long time.
Did you mean the following type of registration fraud, or something else?
“False Registrations
Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.”
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search
Dave . . . ?
You there?
🙂
As trump said: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states,”
Embarrassingly that included his family members and several of his advisors, Bannon was also registered in a house in Florida where he didn’t live which is a breech of state law.
Embarrassingly that included his family members and several of his advisors, Bannon was also registered in a house in Florida where he didn’t live which is a breech of state law.
I’m not sure which of his family members you’re referencing, but Bannon has been cleared with prejudice.
From the Guardian, hardly a bastion of conservatism (in case Dave is still around):
“’However, the investigation also revealed sufficient evidence that the subject intended to legally reside in Miami-Dade County,’ the document continues. ‘Therefore, at a minimum, there is reasonable doubt as to the subject’s guilt. Because the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the subject swore falsely on a voter registration application, the state attorney’s office is not pursuing charges. The matter is now closed.’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/steve-bannon-voter-fraud-charges-florida
I’m not sure which of his family members you’re referencing, but Bannon has been cleared with prejudice.
Tiffany and Jared.
Tiffany and Jared.
Gotcha!
Well can you confirm they’ve voted in two states? The Daily Beast (another non-bastion of conservatism) argues it isn’t enough just to be registered in both:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-voter-fraud_us_588a6800e4b0cef5cf86f723
The Daily Beast . . .
Oops! That’d be the Huffington Post obviously.
Gotcha!
Well can you confirm they’ve voted in two states? The Daily Beast (another non-bastion of conservatism) argues it isn’t enough just to be registered in both:
No, however Trump referred just to those registered in two states.
No, however Trump referred just to those registered in two states.
Hmmm, yeah but in what context?
“When you look at the people that are registered, dead, illegal and two states, and some cases maybe three states, we have a lot to look into,” Trump said in an ABC interview.
https://www.apnews.com/80497cfb5f054c9b8c9e0f8f5ca30a62
Does it follow from having “a lot to look into” that Trump meant actually being registered to vote in multiple states was the same as actually voting in those states?
Not sure why the innocent former should necessarily presuppose the guilty latter . . .
I don’t see a problem with requiring voter ID, but I do object to making such a process discriminatory as some states have done. N Carolina commissioned a survey of the use of different types of ID and excluded those that African Americans were most likely to have, that’s one reason why their law was overturned.
The process I’ve been through to vote is fairly straightforward, I certainly don’t see much opportunity for fraud, when I’ve voted it’s recorded that I’ve voted so I couldn’t vote again.
N Carolina commissioned a survey of the use of different types of ID and excluded those that African Americans were most likely to have, that’s one reason why their law was overturned.
It’s not, actually. The reason SCOTUS didn’t review the case was due to procedural issues. It isn’t clear whether the NC law is unconstitutional or not:
“The decision on Monday not to hear the case turned on procedural issues, not on the substance of the suit, so the court’s current leanings remain unknown. . . In his statement on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to grant the petition seeking review, or petition for certiorari, turned on that dispute.
‘Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law,’ the chief justice wrote, quoting an earlier decision, ‘it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘the denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html
We shall see as time goes on.
Well, here in Oregon, Kate Brown, said in court that she didn’t destroy extra ballots after election night ‘because we might need them later’, and that ‘destruction and security of the ballots were conflicting orders.’
It has to do with people in position operating on a ‘higher’ morality.
You can do whatever you want if no one is willing to stop you.
Oh – I should mention that Brown didn’t just SAY that in court – the judge bought it.
Looks like that swamp drain has gotten clogged. Perhaps Happer can help to unclog it. He’ll need to use some industrial strength science, truth and logic, and some muscle. Is he up for it? We’ll see.
I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.
Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maryland were gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans at the last election, Pennsylvania had been in the presidential election but was redistricted by court order by the midterm. Also some states aggressively remove voters from the electoral roll, Georgia removed 340,000 voters from the roll on the grounds that they had moved, when in fact they had not. Also in the N Carolina 9th district a Republican operative arranged an illegal collection and completion of mail-in ballots. Do you still have compulsory voting in Australia?
The Dems just hated the fact that the EC was what won the election for Trump, conveniently “forgetting” that the EC could just as easily (and has) worked in their favor. The cries of “voter fraud” and “we need to abolish the EC” by the Dems were laughably predictable, and all part of the widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome still ongoing.
The ‘cries of voter fraud’ were mainly by Republicans although the only evidence of systematic voter fraud is the action of Republicans in the 9th district of N Carolina . Democrats do bring up the ‘voter repression’ issues and gerrymandering which clearly favor the Republicans. Wisconsin has been mentioned, its districting is clearly gerrymandered, in the last election there Democrats won 190,000 more votes statewide but the GOP won 63 out of 99 seats! Democrats won the governorship and AG so in the lame duck session the Republican controlled legislature passed laws restricting their powers.
That’s because Democrat states either won’t allow the investigation or rig those too.
“The ‘cries of voter fraud’ were mainly by Republicans although the only evidence of systematic voter fraud is the action of Republicans in the 9th district of N Carolina ”
This huge scandal turns out to have been one guy who hired a second party to collect mailin ballots. I think the guy that did the hiring is the father of the Republican candidate, and the Republican candidate just testified against his father in this case.
Anyway, it’s not like it is a huge Republican voter fraud conspiracy. It’s one dishonest guy. Who got caught.
Phil. if you can explain how gerrymandering impacts how many electoral votes a state has, I would love to hear it.
Phil. did not say gerrymandering affected the number of electoral votes a state has. MarkW, please learn to read.
Keith,
Bruce Cobb was talking about the Electoral College & the rationalization of those that blamed the EC and voter fraud on “their loss”.
Phil replied by talking about gerrymandering in specific statewide elections.
MarkW tried to remind Phil that he was going off the rail.
You, through your bias, could not see this.
(maybe you should re-read the comment by Bruce that Phil was responding to … or you could tell Phil that he needs to read … or you could admit your hypocrisy)
DonM, Bruce Cobb did not mention “the number of electoral votes a state has.”
…
The person that went off the rails is MarkW, complaining about a topic that wasn’t even under discussion.
…
Oh, and Phil. was correct with respect to voter fraud……only case that showed up was Republicans in North Carolina.
Keith, Phil claimed gerrymangering rigs the EC without specifying how. There’s realistically only 2 ways that such rigging could happen (if you know of a third way, please list it):
1) by determining who gets the EC votes. The states phil specifically mentioned are all statewide winner takes all. how the individual districts are shaped has nothing to do with it, which leaves us only
2) by determining how many EC votes a state gets. Mark already address how that is wrong.
So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.
Endicott says: “Phil claimed gerrymangering rigs the EC”
…
No, Phil never mentioned the EC.
No, Phil never mentioned the EC.
*SNIP*
EC = Electoral College
Phil said:
Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.
No answer the *SNIP*question or admit you are defending the indefensible:
So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.
previous attempt to reply hasn’t shown up yet, so apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate
No, Phil never mentioned the EC.
Reading comprehension isn’t a skill you posses, is it Keith?
EC = Electoral College
Phil said Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts
Now that I’ve explained the obvious to you, can you answer the question:
So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.
Other wise I’ll have to take your silence as admission that you know what phil wrote was nonsense in regards to the EC (Electoral College for the willfully dense)
I suspected the profanity in the second SNIP was the reason the post hadn’t shown up. Mods, you can deleted my second attempt at a reply, though I stand by my characterization in the first SNIP. when one shows such a lack it’s an observation not an insult to point it out.
I was responding to Bruce’s comment about voter fraud “cries of voter fraud” and pointed out that that was a Republican trope and that Democrats instead raised the issues of gerrymandering and voter suppression. In replying to Bruce I did not refer to specific statewide elections. You apparently are referring to my response to Michael.
I’ve quoted several times what I am referring to. Since you seemed to miss it all the previous times, here it is again:
Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts
Please explain how you think gerrymandering of districts rigs the Electoral College in the states you listed – all of which are statewide winner takes all the EC votes states.
Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear Phil, this sub-thread hangs off the post I was referencing. Your reply to Bruce is a separate sub-thread off the same referenced post.
IE the post Phil. February 21, 2019 at 4:47 am (which I took the quote in question from) has two follow ups, one from Bruce (February 21, 2019 at 6:19 am) and one from MarkW (February 21, 2019 at 7:27 am). This sub-thread is the follow-up from MarkW, what you just mentioned (“cries of voter fraud”) is the sub-thread that is the follow-up from Bruce and a slightly different topic to what we’ve been discussing in this sub-thread.
And I quote:
“Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. ”
Gerrymandering doesn’t impact the Electoral College.
Gerrymandering impacts the way a district votes.
…
Now show me where Phil. says: ” gerrymandering affected the number of electoral votes a state has.”
.
Your post:
.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636400
Now show me where Phil. says: ” gerrymandering affected the number of electoral votes a state has.”
What Phil said was “but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.” Which is total nonsense for the states he listed (if you believe otherwise then please explain how gerrymandering has anything to do with the electoral college in those states). The electoral college, as it’s currently implemented in most states – allots the electors to the winner of the popular vote for the ENTIRE STATE (IE it’s winner takes all), how the districts are laid out has nothing to do with it (the only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska – and those aren’t in the list of states phil accused of “rigging” in that way and their total EC votes are miniscule). MarkW was apparently asking a rhetorical question to try to make sense out of/highlight the nonsense – since how the districts are laid out has no impact whatsoever on who gets the EC votes (in the states Phil mentioned), if it’s “rigging the outcome” it must be doing so some other way and changing the number of EC votes is as good a guess on Phil’s nonsense as any.
Now what gerrymandering can do, is affect which congress critters get elected in that state, but that not an Electoral college issue at all. So, to repeat, in the states phil mentioned gerrymandering has no effect on the EC (and indeed that is true for of all the states bar Maine which has 4 EC votes only 2 of which get determined by district and Nebraska with 5 EC votes, 3 of which get determined by district – not much room for “rigging” by gerrymandering in those two states – and those district determined votes are barely a blip in the EC total – Trump’s margin in the EC was much wider than the total of the potentially effected EC votes).
Keith, I know you have a pathological need to disagree with me whenever possible.
However, please read what I wrote.
The Electoral College cannot be rigged by gerrymandering as Phil. wrote.
The reason for this should be simple enough for even you to understand.
The number of votes a state has is based on it’s population, and it’s population alone.
Gerrymandering impact which parties get how many Representatives, but the number of Representatives stays the same.
MarkW, you posted: “Phil. if you can explain how gerrymandering impacts how many electoral votes a state has, I would love to hear it.”
…
Phil. made no mention of the how many electoral votes a state has.
Gerrymandering impacts the way a district votes.
Which outside of Maine and Nebraska has ZERO to do with the Electoral College vis-à-vis who gets the EC votes for the state. Maine and Nebraska only have a total of *FIVE* EC votes (2 for Maine 3 for Nebraska) that are district dependent, which rather limits how much “damage” can be done by gerrymandering. and neither state was in the list of state Phil was pointing to.
Phil. made no mention of the how many electoral votes a state has.
No, he claimed gerrymandering affected the electoral college in some unspecified way. Since gerrymandering has ZERO effect on winner takes all states (which all of the states he listed are) vis-à-vis who gets the EC votes for those states, it must effect it some otherway.
Since you are defending Phil’s statement, rather than argue against Mark’s guess as to what Phil meant, please explain how gerrymandering affects the electoral college in the states phil listed if it’s not in who gets the EC votes (state-wide winner takes all doesn’t care about districts) and it’s not in determining the number of EC votes a state has (as I think we all agree it does not).
Keith, what in your “opinion” was the purpose for even bringing up the Electoral College then?
Keith, what in your “opinion” was the purpose for even bringing up the Electoral College then?
MarkW, I’d be very surprised if he actually does try to answer your question. When I asked him a similar question he pretended to not understand the EC was shorthand for Electoral college and completely avoided answering the question. I expect he’ll either quietly leave the thread without ever answering it or continue dancing around the issue without ever addressing the question.
That does seem to be his pattern. Here and elsewhere.
My response about the Electoral College was to Michael who is apparently Australian who said:
Michael February 21, 2019 at 2:15 am
I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ? Here in Australia we have a simple system, still using the good working pencil to mark our ballot papers, and the results go through a computer after the result.
So I pointed out that it was an Electoral College system not a popular vote and pointed out several ways in which voter fraud takes place. One of those by the way was the N Carolina 9th district fraud which coincidentally has been decided today, the court has ordered a new election. The Republican candidate himself also said today that there should be a new election. The Gerrymandering fraud predominantly effects the House and is tilted in favor of Republicans as I illustrated. As pointed out I made no reference to the number of Electoral College votes, however it is quite possible that being a voter in a rigged district is a disincentive to voting. In the case I stated, Wisconsin, the EC was decided by 0.77% (10 EC votes), Michigan was even closer, 0.23% (16 EC votes), Pennsylvania was close too, 0.72% (20 EC votes). That’s a swing of 92 votes, enough to swing the presidential election. There is no way of knowing what the effect might be but there’s no way thatch gerrymandering should be allowed. Losing the popular vote in a state where you have gerrymandered the districts so that you win two thirds of the delegates is fraud. That three of the four closest state elections in 2016 were states where significant gerrymandering took place could is troubling.
That may be what you intended to say, however it isn’t what you actually said.
Regarding gerrymandering, it really is amusing that only Republican gerrymandering offends you.
How dare those dastardly Republicans use the methods that have kept Democrats in power for generations.
John you called it: Except instead of having the courage to continue with this thread, he starts another one in which to keep digging.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636723
The Republican candidate himself also said today that there should be a new election.
Yep and he’s not looking good to win again (if he truly won the first time):
He told those gathered in court that he has suffered two strokes since the election and is “struggling” to get through the hearing.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/embattled-gop-house-candidate-mark-harris-takes-stand-after-emotional-testimony-from-son
Not a wise admission to make on the stand when you’re going to have to run again is it? I hope Republicans have a good conservative candidate in the wings to replace Mr. Harris!
I dunno, it just seems to me it’s always better to win or lose fair and square than to have to play the game again due to suspicion of cheating. Not that this is all Mr. Harris’ fault.
Or is it?
Regarding gerrymandering, it really is amusing that only Republican gerrymandering offends you.
No I’m opposed to all gerrymandering, no matter who does it, it’s just in the current electoral cycle that it’s mostly Republicans. It’s also got much more sophisticated with computer aided designing of districts, I grew up with impartial redistricting and that’s what I’d like to see.
I dunno, it just seems to me it’s always better to win or lose fair and square than to have to play the game again due to suspicion of cheating. Not that this is all Mr. Harris’ fault.
Although in court his son said that it was and that he was aware of the dubious nature of the guy who did it for him because the son warned him about it!
It seems unlikely that Harris will run in the do over.
When it was shown that electoral shennanigans were responsible for Al Franken’s win, the courts wouldn’t even listen to any requests for a do over.
You say you are opposed to all gerrymandering, but you only complain about Republican gerrymandering.
Although in court his son said that it was and that he was aware of the dubious nature of the guy who did it for him because the son warned him about it!
Now you’ve disappointed me Phil . . . didn’t you forget the “Or is it?” that I included as the last sentence in that paragraph?
And we were doing so well . . .
🙂
MarkW February 21, 2019 at 3:53 pm
You say you are opposed to all gerrymandering, but you only complain about Republican gerrymandering.
I was using those as illustrations of what might happen in close elections, the three I quoted were all within 1%, Maryland is the one I’ve heard of where a gerrymander is being litigated but that wasn’t close, 66% for the Democrats. I’m opposed to that one too.
So I pointed out that it was an Electoral College system not a popular vote and pointed out several ways in which voter fraud takes place.
which is a non sequitur as being an EC system vs a popular vote system (for Presidential elections) as those “several ways” have nothing to do with the EC.
As pointed out I made no reference to the number of Electoral College votes
No, what you did do was claim gerrymandering rigs the EC. How it does so is left to the reader to figure out as you never specified any way in which it does so. And logically there are only two ways it could do so (neither of which apply in the states you listed): 1) By determining who gets the EC votes – the states you discuss are all “winner takes all” so gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with it and 2) by determining the number of EC votes the state dishes out – again that isn’t how the EC works so again gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with it.
In short, what you said (regardless of what you meant to say) in regards to the EC was total nonsense.
Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts. North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maryland were gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans at the last election, Pennsylvania had been in the presidential election but was redistricted by court order by the midterm.
Phil you are talking nonsense. 48 out of the 50 states are “winner takes all” meaning the winner of the state wide popular vote gets all the EC votes – the individual districts and therefore Gerrymandering has nothing to do with who gets the EC votes in those states. All of the states you mention are among the 48 so your claiming partisan “rigging” of the EC in those states is utter and total nonsense. The 2 exceptions (Maine and Nebraska, which you didn’t name) make up a total of 9 EC votes, only 5 of which are determined by district (2 in Maine and 3 in Nebraska) with the rest going to the statewide winner. there’s not a lot of gerrymandering tomfoolery that can be done with only 2 and 3 districts. At worse, if you are really skilled at gerrymandering, you could potentially flip a total of 3 EC votes (1 in Maine and 2 in Nebraska), that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the winner takes all EC votes available across all 50 states. Funny thing is, it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have suggested doing away with the Winner Takes All system that most of the states use.
This is really good news, and I look forward to some ‘cages’ being well rattled before very long… }:o)
I hope Mr Happer has his ‘tin hat’ on, because there are going to MSM ‘hatchet jobs’ raining down on him!
Let’s just wait for the cry of “DENIER!” to go up from the swivel-eyed global warming alarmists in the MSM…
I see that Griff has already popped up on here trying to smear Mr Happer as being in the pocket of Big Oil.
A bit rich from someone who is reputed to be in the pocket of Big Green – ‘pot calling the kettle black’.
Outstanding! William Happer interview: https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
To Ron Stabb
Thank you for the link. It is indeed an outstanding interview.
Something I will keep and make available to high school students regarding climate change and CO2. The questions were very well prepared and so were the answers. Easy to read and understand.
And, at the risk of stating the obvious, the left is doing everything it can to block Happer’s involvement,
with the vocal support of the media.
Peer behind the curtain?
Perish the thought!
Somebody better start herding the cats, I’ve invested heavily in cat-nip futures.
You brought it up MarkW, asking Phil a question about the EC when Phil never mentioned the EC: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636400
Keith – it sure looks like Phil brought up the EC in his answer to this question posed by Michael:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636188
Question (Michael): “I see a mention of “Voter fraud”. How is that possible ?”
Answer (Phil): “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”
I’m just not sure how to interpret Phil’s answer other than exactly how Mark did.
Keith, why do you have to lie about something so easily checked.
“Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”
In the very first sentence (not counting the quote).
So Keith, are you embarrassed?
BTW, I love the way you drop this post way down here, away from the rest of the conversation. Perhaps you were hoping nobody would notice.
Re-read my post MarkW: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636599
..
Your strawmen are ludicrous.
Repeating the same lies over and over again make no difference.
You claimed that Phil. never mentioned the EC, I showed where he did.
Yet you continue to dig the hole you are in deeper and deeper.
Is your ego so delicate that you can’t bring yourself to admit that you messed up?
PS: I’m not the only one pointing out your error.
You brought it up MarkW, asking Phil a question about the EC when Phil never mentioned the EC:
Stop lying keith, It was previously pointed out to you that Phil did indeed mention the EC, here is the exact quote from Phil the started all this: “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”
And *were* were asked several times in that other thread
“So Keith, as you keep defending Phil’s statement, why don’t *YOU* tell us how gerrymandering affects the EC in the states Phil mentioned.”
instead of answering the question, you ran away from that thread and came here to continue your lying, claiming Phil never mentioned the EC when he most certainly did as shown in the above quote (where I bolded the words “electoral college” to help you see it). Those actions of your speaks volumes about you, none of it good. So care to try peddling your lies again?
“And *were* were ”
should read
“And *YOU* were ”
“thread” should have been “sub-thread”.
—–
Bottom line, distancing yourself from the sub-thread doesn’t stop people from going back to the sub-thread and checking the facts for themselves, and the fact is Phil, not MarkW, brought up the Electoral College. MarkW merely tried to make sense of what Phil had stated. Since Keith disagrees with Mark’s interpretation of Phil’s statement, he’s been asked to give his own interpretation of the state and has refused to do so by lying with his claim the Phil never mentioned the Electoral College.
You brought it up MarkW, asking Phil a question about the EC when Phil never mentioned the EC:
Mark’s post that you link to was dated February 21, 2019 at 7:27 am, which is a couple hours after the post of phil’s that Mark was replynig to
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/20/washington-post-will-happer-to-be-appointed-to-the-presidential-committee-on-climate-security/#comment-2636272
in which Phil said “Not based on the popular vote but on an Electoral College which can be rigged by partisan gerrymandering of the districts.”
Phil brought it up, Mark was merely reacting to what Phil said about the Electoral College. That you keep claiming otherwise after multiple people have shown you otherwise makes you a liar.
FROM:
Page 5 of Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
As required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf
… there is a table of present and future vulnerabilities of 79 US military installations
From this table, it seems obvious why Trump said, “I don’t see it.”
Not only do I myself not see it, also I do not see any indication of how future projections were made, and I do not see any mention of data showing NO EXTREME TREND in any of the climate-related events considered.
Reporting vulnerability is simply a CHOICE of focus for reporting vulnerability — it says absolutely nothing about any worrisome trend that will increase vulnerability. Just mentioning the word, “climate” in a defense assessment of military vulnerability is merely a shift of attention to something that has not received such attention before. An attention shift is NOT a new phenomenon of climate — it is a phenomenon of report-compiling focus.
My house needs a new roof — it is vulnerable to rainy weather. It’s been this way for a while. In twenty years, if I don’t replace it, then it will be even more vulnerable … to the same patterns of precipitation that have existed for decades. … Nothing to do with human-caused climate change … Nothing to do with any worrisome trends in climate. … Just a statement of what I’m focused on at the moment.
The intelligence report cited in the linked article:
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/worldwide-threat-assessment_dni_2019.pdf
… mentions “climate change” four times, and three of those times are in one short section that merely parrots the IPCC prognostications of extreme events for which real-world data show positively NO EXTREME TRENDS. The other mention seems IPCCeezy sleezy, as well.
In other words, zero credibility, unless you abide by the IPCC Bible.
From the report, this is the sum total of our government’s assessment of the security dangers of climate change:
“Environment and Climate Change
Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition
for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as
extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil
degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and
food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits
they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.
Extreme weather events, many worsened by accelerating sea level rise, will particularly affect
urban coastal areas in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. Damage to
communication, energy, and transportation infrastructure could affect low-lying military bases,
inflict economic costs, and cause human displacement and loss of life.
Changes in the frequency and variability of heat waves, droughts, and floods—combined with
poor governance practices—are increasing water and food insecurity around the world,
increasing the risk of social unrest, migration, and interstate tension in countries such as Egypt,
Ethiopia, Iraq, and Jordan.
Diminishing Arctic sea ice may increase competition—particularly with Russia and China—
over access to sea routes and natural resources. Nonetheless, Arctic states have maintained
mostly positive cooperation in the region through the Arctic Council and other multilateral
mechanisms, a trend we do not expect to change in the near term. Warmer temperatures and
diminishing sea ice are reducing the high cost and risks of some commercial activities and are
attracting new players to the resource-rich region. In 2018, the minimum sea ice extent in the
Arctic was 25 percent below the 30-year average from 1980 to 2010.”
Blathering nonsense I wouldn’t accept from my then-teenage daughters.
Yuge.
Keith Sketchley AKA Philip Schaeffer?