Michigan: Federal Judge who ruled recounts must go on, set aside his decision after the Michigan state courts decided that Stein did not meet the qualifications of an aggrieved candidate. Apparently given there was no chance she could (with 1% of the vote) win a recount, she was not eligible to request the recount.
This effectively ends the recounts barring an overrule by the Michigan State Supreme Court. At this point, there is no longer an order to count, and there is a standing decision that Stein was ineligible to request one in the first place.
Wisconsin: More than seventy percent of the ballots have been counted in Wisconsin, and nearly half the counties are completely done. At this point, there has been a net change from the original total of less than a hundred votes.
This is looking like a rather large exercise in futility here folks. With about 900,000 of the three million votes left to count, the odds of seeing any substantial change has dwindled down to almost zero.
Pennsylvania: Still waiting for a Federal hearing that will apparently determine whether or not the State is within it's rights to ask for a million dollar bond to request a recount. Not even sure how this helps the overall case, as logically Stein never actually went to court (as she was supposed to) to show cause (probable fraud) to have a recount done. I guess she is trying to get a Federal Court to "order" the state of Pennsylvania to do a recount, based on the concept that it's unfair to place a burden on the request for a recount.
The problem with this logic is that states already have laws in place as to when a statewide recount is considered necessary and when it isn't. According to the law, it's necessary when the vote is within a certain percentage (in this case it's not) or when some probable cause (fraud) can be shown in court. A recount for the sake of a recount would costs millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours. One cannot just "expect" that you can just ask for one because it's what you want, and a State has to comply and pay for it.
30 comments:
Trump is going to nominate change an anti science, anti science attorney for the head the Environmental Protection Agency. CH will be thrilled.
plans to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency — a pro-industry, anti-regulation pick that suggests big, big changes could be in store for environmental policy.
The EPA is in charge of creating and enforcing federal regulations around air and water pollution, largely guided by laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which were first passed by Congress in the 1970s. Under President Barack Obama, the EPA has been particularly active in formulating new rules on coal-fired power plants, cars, trucks, and oil and gas operations — all with an eye toward reducing conventional air pollutants and curbing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
Pruitt has been an ardent opponent of these efforts for years. He even calls himself the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”
Ever since becoming Oklahoma’s top prosecutor in 2011, Pruitt has joined or led state lawsuits to block virtually every major federal regulation around climate and air pollution that Obama’s EPA has put forward. He sued to stop a major rule to limit mercury pollution from coal plants. He sued to stop a rule to reduce smog pollution that crossed state lines. (Both rules largely survived these challenges.)
At the moment, Pruitt is part of a lawsuit to block the EPA’s efforts to address global warming via the Clean Power Plan — which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Pruitt has also questioned the science of climate change. In a piece for National Review last May, he wrote: “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” (That is not true.)
Pruitt was a private attorney in Tulsa during the 1990s before becoming an Oklahoma state senator from 1998 to 2006, rising to the rank of Republican whip. Hailing from a state with major oil and gas operations — though also a fair bit of wind power — he has generally been far more sympathetic to industry arguments than environmentalist concerns over the course of his career.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/7/13873894/scott-pruitt-trump-epa
OMG!
This is what happens when you politicized science.
Pruitt's appointment will be a refreshing change.
“President-Elect Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt is a breath of fresh air. No longer do we have to suffer under President Obama’s ridiculous EPA ‘climate’ regulations. It is also refreshing that a Republican President is not throwing the EPA over to the green activists and the media by appointing a weak administrator. Christine Todd Whitman he is not!
Trump’s pick of Pruitt finally means that a Republican President is standing up the green establishment! Historically, EPA chiefs have been among the most pro regulatory members of past Republican presidents from Nixon through Ford, Reagan and both Bushes. Trump has broken the cycle!
Climate sanity has been restored to the U.S. EPA. No longer do we have to hear otherwise intelligent people in charge in DC blather on about how EPA regulations are necessary to control the Earth’s temperature or storminess.
No longer do we have to endure GOP presidents avoiding battle over the green agenda by picking EPA chiefs that were timid at best. We know how bad GOP EPA picks have been in the past because many former GOP EPA chiefs endorsed President Obama’s EPA climate regulations.
If climate skeptics were worried about Trump’s meeting with Former VP Al Gore earlier this week, the pick of Pruitt is reassuring. Basically Trump listened to what Gore had to say at their New York City meeting and then he exercised his good judgement and did the exact opposite.
Statement by Marc Morano - Webmaster for Climate Depot
The EPA is the most autocratic and onerous of all the regulatory agencies in the federal government.
The Republicans are the party that politicised science.
More Republican science denial.
Both the north and south poles are undergoing dramatic changes.
But the Republican, under control of the energy companies, deny reality for profit, not humanity.
Antarctic sea ice reached record maximum in 2016.
Stick that in your pole and smoke it.
President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate professional-wrestling executive Linda McMahon to head the Small Business Administration, his transition team announced Wednesday.
If confirmed, McMahon would be the first Cabinet secretary to ever face a “Stone Cold Stunner” on national television.
McMahon, 68, a co-founder and former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, was one of Trump’s early backers and contributed more than $6.5 million to support his campaign. She and Trump have had business ties for decades, dating to the late 1980s when WWE, then known as the World Wrestling Federation, held WrestleMania, an annual pay-per-view event, at Trump Plaza in Atlantic City.
[Donald Trump’s latest appointee once got tombstoned in a WWE ring]
“Linda has a tremendous background and is widely recognized as one of the country’s top female executives advising businesses around the globe,” Trump said in a statement. He added that his administration is “going to bring back our jobs and roll back the burdensome regulations that are hurting our middle-class workers and small businesses.”
You're pinned!!!!!!
Washington Post
Changing Theories
As the Antarctic sea ice reached record levels, scientists floated several hypotheses, including possible changes in the ozone hole over Antarctica, or increased amounts of fresh water—which freezes more easily—on the surface of the ocean around Antarctica. At the same time, they said it's important to remember the big differences between the poles. Assessing sea ice dynamics at opposite ends of the Earth is not an apples-to-apples proposition.
The biggest difference is that the Arctic sea ice forms in a huge ocean surrounded by the northern hemisphere land masses, while the Antarctic sea ice forms as a fringe around a vast frozen continent.
"One has to say that Arctic sea ice is completely different from Antarctic sea ice, which almost melts completely back each summer," said Lars Kaleschke, an ice researcher with the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability at the University of Hamburg. "The processes of ice formation are completely different.
"We have more snow in the Antarctic, which speeds ice formation (by pushing thin ice underwater) and protects the ice from melting," he said. "And the Antarctic is surrounded by the circumpolar current, which isolates the Antarctic from the rest of the world."
Kaleschke said he doesn't doubt that the factors Nghiem's team pinpointed are key to the dynamics in the Antarctic, but he thinks other forces are in play.
"One of the most convincing things I see is the freshening of the ocean from precipitation," he said. Increased snowfall over the region is consistent with global climate models because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.
"It comes down over the Antarctic Ocean over the sea ice zone. There, this leads to freshening of the surface layer. That leads to stratification, which leads to an increased formation of sea ice, because it's effectively shielded [by snow]," he said.
The fact that researchers are still debating the reasons for Antarctic sea ice expansion shows the need for more data and more studies.
"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."
PUBLISHED UNDER:
CLIMATE SCIENCE
There are several different opinions. But most of them are based on climate change..
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming
Hillary could have take the high road, she should have taken the high road, she did not, so now she has one more dark stain on her pant suit and it is not Big Dog Bill's.
I am happy she failed in HER Recount.
Now we can get on with the business of the work of building a real recovery with 3 percent plus growth rates in GDP.
How long after Obama leaves Office does he buy the Chevy Volt?
Antarctic sea ice reached record maximum in 2016.
Climate alarmist are always flummoxed by inconvenient scientific facts.
The day Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, the United States was deep into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The country lost 791,000 jobs in January of 2009, and the worst was still to come. It was as if the new White House staff had been helicoptered into the middle of a California wildfire and told to go put it out.
Today, of course, things look quite a bit different. Though there are still far too many workers sitting out of the labor force, unemployment is down below 5 percent. Pay is rising; in fact, middle-class incomes shot up at their fastest pace on record in 2015. And after a little weakness earlier this year, economic growth seems to be healthy. The Commerce Department reports that gross domestic product expanded at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in two years. Corporate profits also had their strongest quarter of growth since 2012. “The U.S. economy is in good shape in the second half of 2016,” explains one economist quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “After some softness in late 2015 and early 2016, tied to an inventory correction and a downturn in energy production, growth has picked back up.”
In short, Obama is bequeathing his successor the sort of economy he could have only dreamed of when he was elected eight years ago.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/11/29/donald_trump_is_going_to_coast_on_obama_s_economic_success.html
There are several different opinions. But most of them are based on climate change..
Climatology is the only field that considers "adjusted" data and computer generated fantasies instead of actual empirical data to be "science".
Mestra, read the entire article.
Your usual game is to cherry pick. It's more complex than you claim.
Trying to introduce reason to those who can't understand it, is like feeding the dead.
That applies to those who deny human activities have no influence on the climate.
Anecdotal personal experience.
Stage three smog alerts were common when I moved to Southern California, they were common. You were advised to remain inside. It was horrible.
Since the automobile emissions were dramatically increased, we haven't had a stage three alert for years.
Take that worldwide, of course human activities affect the climate. But reason is beyond you.
decreased
Slate.com
Lol. Yeah sure.
Current EPA is out of control wacko's HB loves them because he owns no land
EPA loves to trespass on my private land holding. In one section that I own (no mortgage) , the EPA wants to regulate ever puddle and stream, no matter how small.
It is killing Farming and costing Billions a year and for nothing.
We the Land Holders, the Real Environmentalist have had more then enough.
the EPA wants to regulate ever puddle and stream, no matter how small.
A rehash of your stupidity that your puddle has no impact on those downstream Oh well, do what you want idiot with no regard for others. LOL
In short, Obama is bequeathing his successor the sort of economy he could have only dreamed of when he was elected eight years ago.
And yet, we elected a reality television star who promises to "fix the country" and "make it great again"... rather than the person Obama endorsed and promised to follow many of the same plans.
Apparently the bulk of America was not so enamored with Obama as was Slate.com and the crazies of California. You, your Californian buddies can secede and take Slate.com with you as your official government propaganda arm.
Then you can stop trying to push all your craziness on everyone else.
That applies to those who deny human activities have no influence on the climate.
Like the new EPA chief. Good by world as we know it.
A Lawyer for a Lawless EPA
Scott Pruitt can restore respect for the states in environmental policy.
As Donald Trump rolls out his domestic-policy nominees, Democrats are discovering to their horror that more often than not he meant what he said. The latest evidence is the President-elect’s intention to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection Agency.
There was a time when Republican EPA administrators were liberals in GOP power suits. Think William Reilly under George H.W. Bush or Christine Todd Whitman under George W. Bush. They more or less agreed with the left’s command-and-control model of environmental regulation, and they’d pile more costs on the private economy.
The Democratic Party’s green extremism, especially on climate change, has made such Republicans obsolete. President Obama couldn’t get his climate-change agenda through a Democratic Congress, so he ordered the EPA to impose it on the 50 states by diktat. The agency reinterpreted statute after ancient statute as its bureaucrats saw fit, daring the courts to stop them. Think of the Clean Power Plan to put the coal industry out of business, the carbon endangerment rule, grabbing authority to call any pond or puddle a “waterway,” and so much more.
Mr. Pruitt’s first job will be restoring respect for the Constitution and cooperative federalism in EPA rule-making. He knows how to do this because he led the legal charge by the states against EPA abuses, including the victory of a Supreme Court stay on the Clean Power Plan as it moves through the appellate courts. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Pruitt could order the EPA’s lawyers to inform the courts that the agency no longer stands by the legal interpretation behind the Clean Power Plan.
Democrats will attack Mr. Pruitt as a climate-change “denier,” but his only offense is disagreeing with them on energy policy. The irony is that Mr. Pruitt will probably do more for the environment than Mr. Obama ever did because he will make sure that rules issued by the EPA are rooted in law and thus won’t be overturned in court.
Time will determine how trump does. He hasn't even done anything yet. Maybe his the science will convince him that his denier pick was not a smart thing. But in trump world all regulations are bad and business should be allowed to maximize profits at the expense of all. And this is just for the US. The global reports are still to come and I expect 2016 to be the 3rd year in a row for record heat. But, the models are all wrong which makes GW a hoax.
The autumn of 2016 was the warmest ever observed in records going back to 1895 for the 48 contiguous U.S. states, according to data released on Wednesday by NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The nation’s average September-to-November temperature of 57.63°F was a full 1.05°F above the previous autumn record, set way back in 1963, and it was 4.08°F above the 20th-century average (see Figure 1). The record-setting margin of more than 1°F is a hefty one for a temperature record that spans an entire season and a landmass as large as the 48 contiguous states. For comparison, the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh-warmest U.S. autumns are all clustered within 1°F of each other, as are the six coldest autumns on record.
Sure Cali, the WSJ Seems to miss the AJ's lack of belief in science as he has sued the EPA on every major policy they make. Sorry, he is not a friend of mother earth, just business and the unimpeded increase of CO2.
Not surprisingly, Pruitt has also questioned “the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”
He claims, falsely, that the climate “debate is far from settled” and that “scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” A vast majority of scientists, of course, agree that climate change is happening, and that it’s due to human activities.
Pruitt has played a leading role in lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan, the most important step our nation has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Before the plan was even finalized, he went before Congress to call on states to flout the law.
It's more complex than you claim.
Not it's not Roger. It's following the scientific method taught to every high school student.
Agenda filled climate scientist do not.
Climatology is the only field that considers "adjusted" data
Really ? Ever conduct an experiment with huge amounts of data??? Ever take a statistics course and analyze the data for relevancy and deviations??? You barely can add let alone run a statistical model. Maybe CH should chime in since he's the expert in data manipulation. LOL
Menstral child should review this, from an organization that was a complete skeptical group and now subscribes warming is not only real, but driven by man.
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Why Adjust Temperatures?
There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.
Figure 2. Documented time of observation changes and instrument changes by year in the co-op and USHCN station networks. Figure courtesy of Claude Williams (NCDC).
Figure 2. Documented time of observation changes and instrument changes by year in the co-op and USHCN station networks. Figure courtesy of Claude Williams (NCDC).
Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.
In mensural's simple mind....all data is pure and should be used as is. Yep. shows us all why he never graduated HS. LOL
Bottom Line, you lost, your ideals and idea's were defeated, so take that seat at the back of the bus and watch how Adults take this country forward.
If every liberal would live as they preach , the USA would be a much cleaner place, So liberals , park your polluting cars, stop buying new stuff that has to be shipped and go back to nature.
But, one fact we know about liberals is that they are liars, it is the foundation of what hey are about.
Just think if everyone that voted for Hillary, sold off their cars, bought bicycles and walked to work, what a wonderful thing that would be.
We know that liberals have to have Gov't nanny to tell them how to act, unable to think on their own or act on their own words.
IF I thought my tractors, trucks and car where in fact killing the Earth , and IF I was a liberal gorism,,,, why would I use those vehicles , seems I would be two faced.
Hillary you lost because you are a stupid old tired socialist, not because some people said mean things about you.
""The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."
I agree.
Just think if everyone that voted for Hillary, sold off their cars, bought bicycles and walked to work, what a wonderful thing that would be
So do I, just because it might shake them out of their status quo bubble reality. By the way, I've biked into work every day this year and it's not the hardship that you seem to think.
Post a Comment