Category Archives: Media Criticism

California’s Water

There’s one year left, if we don’t get a wet winter.

A sane electorate would start fracking the hell out of the Monterey Shale, opening up wells of shore, and use the energy to run desalinization plants, instead of wrecking the state economy with carbon mitigation that will have zero effect on the climate, and building high-speed rail.

So we won’t be doing that. Not yet, anyway.

How To Boil A Journalist

Some thoughts on the evolving “consensus” on climate science:

…there never has been a “crunch point” forcing journalists to re-examine the issue. Instead they have just kept the same ridiculous views for over a decade even though no sane journalist coming to the subject of “global warming” after 18 years of pause, complete failure of climate models, global ice back at normal levels, no increase in climate extremes, a decrease in hurricanes and children still knowing what snow is … no journalist would swallow this non-science about doomsday warming in the face of NO EVIDENCE to support it. (Rookies might be more sceptical, but they probably quickly get indoctrinated into the journalists alarmists views)

They don’t ever look at global warming afresh. They just keep believing the same non-science they have for over a decade despite the overwhelming evidence against their insane views.

The fever (to borrow a metaphor from the alarmist-in-chief) will have to break at some point.

[Update a while later]

Naomi Klein showcases everything that is wrong with climate alarmism.

Nervous Democrats

I suspect that Greg Sargent is a canary in the coal mine about the Hillary coronation.

[Update late morning]

Mollie Hemingway fisks Hillary’s press conference within an inch of its life.

[Update a few minutes later]

Am I the only one who thought it bizarre that she would have been using a decade-old machine for her server? She said that it had originally been installed during her husband’s administration, which means no later than 2000 (though it could have been earlier). That means it was probably a Pentium III or a K6-2 running at best about half a gigahertz, and it likely had at most 64 megabytes of RAM. If it was a Windows machine, it would have been running 98. Again, at best. If it had been installed earlier, it might be running 95, on an older, slower machine, with less memory. If it was running Linux (which it would have been if I were setting up a mail server), it would probably be better.

Fast forward to 2009. Now, for a few hundred bucks, you can buy a new machine, dual core at 2 GHz, with several gigabytes of RAM running Windows 7 (or Linux). Why would you be trusting your email to what was, at that point, an antique, not just in power, but in reliability?

I don’t believe her. I don’t understand the point of this particular absurd lie, though. She didn’t even have to say how she acquired it. She could have just said they purchased it from Dell. It’s not like we’re ever going to get our hands on it to verify that.

[Update a few minutes later]

Why the Clinton emails matter, politically.

[Late-afternoon update]

OK, now it’s a full-blown document destruction scandal.

They were doing the same thing all through the nineties. The only difference is that she blatantly admitted it in the press conference. She’s always gotten away with destroying evidence before, why wouldn’t she think it could go on forever?

[Friday-morning update]

Hillary’s favorability plummeting:

As her book tour showed, Hillary is a political mediocrity … at best. That’s why she lost the nomination in 2008 to a one-term Senate backbencher even with Bill trying to pull her across the finish line, and that’s when the Clintons were still culturally relevant. If a reasonably gifted Democrat challenged her, Hillary would likely lose the nomination again. If Democrats move forward with the coronation, those trend lines will have 20 months to develop into yet another electoral disaster for Hillary.

Yup.