NOT!

I'm prepping a post on how the failed Rapture predictions were pretty much just like the failed global cooling/warming/insert catastrophe here  predictions that theDMC and the "science" community have been spewig for centures.  Butuntil the you'll need to make do with Bill Nye the Science Guy getting it wrong.

When host Uma Pemmaraju asked a seemingly simple question, "Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well," "The Science Guy" first seemed completely stumped, and then gave a rather absurd answer:

BILL NYE: The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change, but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. That’s the real deal. Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere. Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence.

It is indeed telling that "The Science Guy" didn't once mention the impact of this year's La Niña on tornado activity which most climatologists and meteorologists on both sides of the global warming debate agree is largely the culprit.

But the best was still to come when Pemmaraju asked a pretty simple question, and "The Science Guy" looked like he had been asked to prove Riemann's Hypothesis:

UMA PEMMARAJU, HOST AMERICA’S NEWS HEADQUARTERS: Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well?

NYE: Other countries?

PEMMARAJU: Other countries with tornadoes?

NYE: Well, there’s not that many other countries that have the configuration of North America to make tornadoes. And the word “hurricane,” you know, is a word coined in the Caribbean, like, so this is a unique, unique area in that regard. We have the Gulf of Mexico. We have this access for cold air from Canada or from the Arctic. And these two things conspire to move the jet stream, and then that helps carry this extra water vapor across this part of the North America. So, it’s a unique place, and you don’t have this kind, you don’t have tornadoes in Norway, for example. It’s just set up different, the weather’s set up differently. Here in the U.S. it’s a serious problem.

Well, not exactly.

Contrary to "The Science Guy's" odd view on this topic, tornadoes have been observed on every continent on this planet with the exception of Antartica. A study of insurance records across the globe finds tornadoes causing significant losses in Europe, India, Japan, South Africa, and Australia.

Although the United States typically has more tornadoes than any other country, as a function of land area, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom both actually have more.

Also contrary to today's conventional wisdom, Bangladesh is the nation with the most tornado-related deaths averaging 179 per year having also experienced the deadliest tornado in history on April 26, 1989, killing approximately 1300. That country has had at least 19 tornadoes that have killed more than 100 people, almost half the total of the rest of the world.

So much for "The Science Guy's" claim "there’s not that many other countries that have the configuration of North America to make tornadoes."

As for his statement "you don’t have tornadoes in Norway," take a gander at this near Mandal on Norway's south coast July 15, 2009:

The reality is Bill Nye "The Science Guy" appears to know absolutely nothing about tornadoes.

Why he's believed to be an expert about matters related to meteorology and climatology truly boggles the mind.

Some facts are easy to chec.  Or should be.  The recent spate of toradoes that has hit the Joplin MO are has been horrific.  According to FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: "Top of the hour right now, we're focusing on the things that are not so fun in Joplin, Missouri. More than 150 people still have not been heard from since the deadliest tornado on record hit there last Sunday."

Um.

No.  

Deadliest of al time?  Daultipur-Salturia Tornado in Bangladesh on April 26, 1989, which killed approximately 1,300 people.

S CNN was close, right?  Maybe they meant the deadliest in the US.  Right?

Um.

No.  

Again.

Here in America, Joplin currently ranks eighth. The most deadly was 1925's Tri-State Tornado which killed 695 people in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri.

Most trusted name in news my @$$.

from M Walsh at NRO:

Think the Knight of the Teleprompter is not so hot when it comes to, you know, actually speaking? Well, think again. The president is nowhere near as dumb as he sometimes looks and sounds when winging it. Quite the contrary: He’s too darn smart! Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times explains it all for you: 

It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch whisky and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling, “Get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

Read the whole thing. An unintentional comic masterpiece and just a hint of all the treats coming our way from Obama’s media protectors in the weeks and months ahead.

I assume my hypocrit meter is gonna be completely out of whack and take an aweful beating the next year or so ...... but here's a zinger:

L.A. TIMES: DNC chairwoman supports U.S. auto industry so much she owns a Japanese car.

Oh, how embarrassing.

Like roll-up-the-tinted-windows-and-slouch-down-in-your-seat embarrassing.

The new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was criticizing Republicans who opposed President Obama’s bailout of the American automakers union, oh, no, make that American automakers.

“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, “we would be driving foreign cars. They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.”

So Michael O’Brien of The Hill newspaper went and checked what kind of automobile loyal-American-car-supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz owns.

Yup, you guessed it — Japanese.

Drive as she says, not as she does.

Ouch

Even worse, it’s a Japanese car that, though it’s built in America, is built in a right-to-work state!

I realize some of these are cherry picked but regardless they paint quite a picture.  One that needs to be repainted often during the next 18 months. 

I don't usually clutter the place up with legal mumbo-jumbo but these two items call out for posting.

In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: the Chief Justice’s footnote 6, which briefly responds to the conflicting positions taken in dissent by Justice Breyer (joined by Justice Ginsburg) and Justice Sotomayor, and then observes:

It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text.

 

then there's this: in NASA  v. Nelson, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011) (Scalia & Thomas, JJ., concurring in the judgment). Although the plaintiffs asserted a constitutional right to privacy, Scalia pointed out that their brief contained “not a single citation to the sole document we are called upon to construe: the Constitution of the United States.” He then sardonically called the lack of a citation “refreshingly honest”—because in his view no such constitutional right exists.

 Further explanation available upon request.

Joe Biden calls Obama’s action against Bin Laden, “the boldest decision … any president has undertaken on a single event in modern history.”

Seriously? Of course, “modern history” is a relative term, so presumably he’s excluding the Emancipation Proclamation or Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But how about Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon? Or Bush’s surge?

And of course, boldness doesn’t necessary depend on success. Carter’s botched mission to rescue the hostages was certainly bolder. So was Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs. Indeed, given what a loose cannon Joe Biden is, Obama’s decision to pick him as a running mate might even be bolder.

from Jonah Goldberg