Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

Morning thoughts:

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Extreme volcanic venting in the north Pacific and all over the oceans! This is wild, you guys! 

[Typhoon Tip]

 

MHT 100R

BOS 99R

PVD 97R

CON 97R

BDL 96TR

 

[donsutherland1]

Glacial boulders at Franconia Notch State Park. The last boulder was split by the melting and refreezing of the ice. The boulders were deposited around 25,000 years ago as the ice sheet advanced south. 

[TheClimateChanger]

23 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Glacial boulders at Franconia Notch State Park. The last boulder was split by the melting and refreezing of the ice. The boulders were deposited around 25,000 years ago as the ice sheet advanced south. 

Nice pics, and a good reminder that the climate is always changing... just usually a little slower than these days. I remarked recently on the irony of having the Great Lakes exist in a future hothouse earth, carved from that same ice just 14,000 years ago. 

[csnavywx]

On 7/29/2025 at 8:46 AM, nflwxman said:

Work in renewables and can confirm that this is the case. The 2025 numbers are even more compelling. For example, the average cost of an energy storage system dropped about 27% in the past year due to technology improvements (and a reduction in EV demand, unfortunately). Currently, battery systems are competitive with LNG Peaker plans in MISO (Midwest) where fossils were heavy entrenched incumbents. The reality is that PV + BESS make so much sense. The technology pair has no long-term extraction costs, can be recycled, and of course, no long-term combustion impacts. BESS is also the "swiss army knife" of grid technology and can respond to grid disturbances in milliseconds. Peaker plants, or even nuclear, can't do that.

The problem is adoption still isn't happening fast enough. This should have been 10 years ago.

 

Full disclosure as I'm long FSLR stock and ICLN etf shares as of a couple of months ago, but it's suffered on an important metric that doesn't ever seem to be discussed: profitability. For better or worse live and breathe in a market system, where component cost is only one part of the equation and the considerable firming costs get downplayed (esp. at high penetration, at low pen. they're negligible). There is no OPEC for RE and the oft cited negative power prices are a symptom of high volatility, something that's never good for bottom lines in a commodity space. If you rushed to buy in '21 during the initial wave of optimism without careful consideration of the downsides, you got rinsed for 70%+ of your investment.

The recent growth in PV+BESS is encouraging and I think the equity side has been pounded enough that it's a decent buy for LT positions, but we're going to have to spend a lot of cash upgrading the grid to handle this as well and that cost isn't going to be cheap, esp. at today's interest rates. If we're not honest about that up front, then well... the political backlash will be even worse than we've seen so far.

I agree this should have been 10 years ago -- I think rebound and network effects along with struggling profitability are going to result in it the transition moving slower than it otherwise could have. It still needs subsidies to fill the gap. Some companies are better than others, ofc.

[csnavywx]

A more in depth look at the issue available here (as a review of the book "The Price is Wrong"): https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14174&context=mlr

The book itself is a good read.

[WEATHER53]

Can I ask?  If poles have moved 3 feet; that seems  seems insignificant?   But  do we  know that?  

 

 

[chubbs]

12 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Full disclosure as I'm long FSLR stock and ICLN etf shares as of a couple of months ago, but it's suffered on an important metric that doesn't ever seem to be discussed: profitability. For better or worse live and breathe in a market system, where component cost is only one part of the equation and the considerable firming costs get downplayed (esp. at high penetration, at low pen. they're negligible). There is no OPEC for RE and the oft cited negative power prices are a symptom of high volatility, something that's never good for bottom lines in a commodity space. If you rushed to buy in '21 during the initial wave of optimism without careful consideration of the downsides, you got rinsed for 70%+ of your investment.

The recent growth in PV+BESS is encouraging and I think the equity side has been pounded enough that it's a decent buy for LT positions, but we're going to have to spend a lot of cash upgrading the grid to handle this as well and that cost isn't going to be cheap, esp. at today's interest rates. If we're not honest about that up front, then well... the political backlash will be even worse than we've seen so far.

I agree this should have been 10 years ago -- I think rebound and network effects along with struggling profitability are going to result in it the transition moving slower than it otherwise could have. It still needs subsidies to fill the gap. Some companies are better than others, ofc.

Yes, renewables and fossil fuel are completely different industries: extractive vs tech manufacturing. Fossil fuels are very profitable if you control a cheap resource. In renewables China is the low cost-supplier, with an ever widening lead. Making it difficult for the rest of the world to compete. We are a laggard in renewables from a cost standpoint due to tariffs, permitting costs and other factors. With the current administration we aren't going to catch-up either. Another factor is natural gas prices, which are well below global levels in the US due to our local production. Which also hurts the competitiveness of renewables. In the future as US LNG exports continue to increase, the difference between our gas prices and the rest of the world could shrink. We could easily end up with high cost power, vs the rest of the world, particularly China. 

Batteries and solar are becoming increasingly important to energy economics supplanting oil and other fossil fuels. We are way behind China and falling further behind. Hitching our wagon to the wrong energy horse.  

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/us-solar-manufacturers-lag-skyrocketing-market-demand/

https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-cost-of-renewables-to-continue-falling-in-2025-as-china-extends-manufacturing-lead-bloombergnef/

[ChescoWx]

For those searching for UHI adjustments at the PHL Airport....we found them - but in 26 of the last 29 years NCEI has actually made warming adjustments....green is raw.

[TheClimateChanger]

In a stunning departure from the conditions of the summer to date, August has started off on a very cool note nationwide. The PRISM data below is only for the first two days of the month, but yesterday saw similarly impressive cold with a number of record low max temperatures in the south and a few isolated record lows in the eastern US. While I still expect August to finish out above normal for CONUS, this is going to make a new summer national record quite difficult. Will probably take a few days just to return to 1991-2020 means nationally, which means we are likely looking at one of the coolest first weeks of August in a long while. Probably would need an epic heat wave to keep pace with 2021 & 1936, at this point.

[TheClimateChanger]

Today's thread:

 

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

In a stunning departure from the conditions of the summer to date, August has started off on a very cool note nationwide. The PRISM data below is only for the first two days of the month, but yesterday saw similarly impressive cold with a number of record low max temperatures in the south and a few isolated record lows in the eastern US. While I still expect August to finish out above normal for CONUS, this is going to make a new summer national record quite difficult. Will probably take a few days just to return to 1991-2020 means nationally, which means we are likely looking at one of the coolest first weeks of August in a long while. Probably would need an epic heat wave to keep pace with 2021 & 1936, at this point.

this is normal climo, when June 20 to the end of July is very hot, August tends to be less hot.

 

[ChescoWx]

I suspect many on this very forum are members of this "climate church" and if you fail to kneel at this "altar" you are a "denier" So great to see common sense and real science and true dialog coming back into the public debate!

[TheClimateChanger]

Evening notes:

 

[TheClimateChanger]

BTW, NCEI data release is set for tomorrow morning at 11 am. July should come in among the top ten hottest, IMO. Looks like a number of eastern states had should finish around or in top five hottest. I didn't see any record-breaking values, but I didn't check every state.  I think the June/July pairing will be somewhere in the top 8 or so... within striking distance of the record hot summers (JJA) of 1936 & 2021. August, however, has gotten off to a cool start nationally.

Given where I suspect we are at for June & July, August would need to be record or near record warm for a new record high summer (JJA) for the CONUS (the current record holders of 2021 & 1936 both had hot Augusts). With the first week coming in decidedly below the 1991-2020 mean, it looks unlikely at this point. While heat is building now and the next couple of weeks look generally hot, it would take a pretty big inferno to completely wipe out the first week AND propel us to near record heat for the month as a whole. Still, August should come in above (perhaps well above) normal when all is said and done, with a top 5 hot summer probable.

[TheClimateChanger]

A couple of thoughts for today:

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNDngQCTCg4/?igsh=MTF4N3lpa2ozdDdxcw==

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

3 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Something to ponder that may go against the general narrative. Not only are the PRISM estimates routinely coming in higher, but nClimDiv continues to demonstrate a cooling bias relative to USCRN and it's really becoming rather significant in recent months. The July anomaly was +.21F higher for USCRN, which makes a big difference in the rankings when each hundredth of a degree matters.

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[ChescoWx]

From Dr. Wielicki on the Phoenix Sky Harbor UHI heat "record" When do we stop using airports for climate records?

• The 118 °F reading lasted no more than five minutes.
• It occurred at 3:40 pm, 3:50 pm, 3:55 pm, and 4:00 pm, smack in the afternoon departure rush.
• Winds blew west at 7–9 kts, gusting past 17 kts, steering engine exhaust directly onto the sensor, which sits just 80 m east of Runway 25.
• The moment departures thinned, the temperature slipped back to 117 °F, matching the previous mark.

"That single, exhaust-driven blip will now live forever in national climate datasets, nudging trendlines upward and gifting climate alarmists another talking point. This is not science, this is taxpayer-funded fraud that siphons wealth and freedom under a veneer of “records.”"

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

From Dr. Wielicki on the Phoenix Sky Harbor UHI heat "record" When do we stop using airports for climate records?

• The 118 °F reading lasted no more than five minutes.
• It occurred at 3:40 pm, 3:50 pm, 3:55 pm, and 4:00 pm, smack in the afternoon departure rush.
• Winds blew west at 7–9 kts, gusting past 17 kts, steering engine exhaust directly onto the sensor, which sits just 80 m east of Runway 25.
• The moment departures thinned, the temperature slipped back to 117 °F, matching the previous mark.

"That single, exhaust-driven blip will now live forever in national climate datasets, nudging trendlines upward and gifting climate alarmists another talking point. This is not science, this is taxpayer-funded fraud that siphons wealth and freedom under a veneer of “records.”"

Maybe he shouldn't weigh in when he doesn't have the data. There were numerous stretches where Phoenix was at 118°, some of which were five or more minutes long, which precludes his "gust hypothesis." One example from the minute-by-minute readings:

Also, NWS Phoenix is one of the few sites with a backup sensor. If the numbers are off, the NWS looks into issue. 

Finally, from the NWS Phoenix Weather Area: El Centro (118°) missed its monthly mark by 1°; Blythe (120°) missed its monthly mark by 1°; East Mesa (117°) tied its monthly mark, Scottsdale (116°) broke its monthly mark by 1°, and Tacna NE (120°) missed its monthly mark by 1°. Some of these are small communities. Outside of the Phoenix area, Tucson (112°) tied its monthly record. 

[donsutherland1]

Apparently, it seems that there is a concerted effort underway to discredit Phoenix's monthly temperature record from yesterday.

Apparently, the individual is unaware that Phoenix's ASOS was commissioned, which means it meets federal siting requirements.  Therefore, there's no need to throw out its readings. Second, and more importantly, the heat was real as nearby data from East Mesa, Tempe ASU, Scottsdale, etc., show. That additional data reveals that Phoenix was not an isolated hot spot.  The individual's statement is unserious and ill-informed. 

[donsutherland1]

This essentially captures the X-based campaign to discredit Phoenix's August monthly high temperature record from August 7. It was a good test of GPT-5:

[Typhoon Tip]

4 New Myths About Climate Change—and How to Debunk Them

 

Pushing off climate change policy isn’t that far removed from denying its existence.

Popular Science

• Sara Kiley Watson 

More from Popular Science

Misinformation and delay are just climate denial tactics with a layer of green-washing. 

Not much more than 10 years ago, it may have seemed like climate change denial was an ordinary, if not misinformed, opinion shared among loads of people. Nowadays, with climate disasters plaguing most everywhere in the world, it’s not so practical to live in denial. As of September 2021, only one in every 10 Americans thinks climate change isn’t happening, but around three out of every four believes it is. 

Of course, some leaders still hold on to the constantly debunked idea that climate change isn’t happening. But businesses, even fossil fuel ones, are changing their tune ever so slightly. 

“Although some politicians continue to traffic in climate denial, corporations are too smart for that because they realize it will alienate most of their consumers,” says Edward Maibach, director of George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication. Climate change denial now comes in a variety of embellished, truthful-sounding opinions—but in reality, they’re just as mythical as the idea that climate change is a hoax. Here are three examples of those altered arguments.

---

Myth no. 1: Clean energy will hurt working-class people

It’s no secret that in the past, renewable energy was a far off and expensive alternative to fossil fuels. But today we know that isn’t the case: Solar and wind were the cheapest sources of energy in the world in 2020, and prices continue to drop. “Renewables present countries tied to coal with an economically attractive phase-out agenda that ensures they meet growing energy demand, while saving costs, adding jobs, boosting growth and meeting climate ambition,” Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said in June. 

Still, there are plenty of op-eds boldly stating that renewable energy policy will hurt the vulnerable—often to make the case for expanding fossil fuels. But these arguments are simplistic and overlook the bigger, more important picture, says John Cook, a research fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Australia. 

“More broadly, these types of arguments ignore the harmful impacts of climate change that damage society and the economy—the costs of climate inaction will be far greater than the costs of climate action,” Cook says. 

Some opponents have brought up concerns about job losses, specifically in the US, which despite global growth during the pandemic, saw a downtick in employment. Whether it’s fossil fuel workers in already-struggling communities or clean energy workers who lost jobs during COVID-19, policy must prioritize working class people in the energy transition.

Myth no. 2: Scientists and activists are overreacting; opponents are being realistic 

Another way that climate denial views are being recast is in “culture war terms,” says Cook, by painting proponents of climate action as “extremist and pushing political agendas.” One example is the idea of “climate realism”—which supposedly exists to counteract panic. Fossil fuel-funded groups like the Heartland Institute have gone so far as to find their own anti-Greta Thunberg who pushes against “climate alarmism”—the idea that the climate crisis must be combated with serious urgency. 

In reality, we’ve been in the loop on climate change for at least 62 years—and that we’re down to the wire to to keep the worst impacts from happening. Making climate change political and dragging out decision making is in some ways, a new excuse to do nothing at all. 

“These kinds of arguments tap into people’s social identity and are quite corrosive as they have a polarizing impact on society,” Cook says. “When issues become culturally or politically polarized, progress becomes more difficult.”

Another reason politics and social identity have been injected into climate conspiracies is through a fringe movement that correlates immigration with environmental catastrophe. This has also been named “eco-bordering” by British political scientists Joe Turner and Dan Bailey. “This discourse seeks to blame immigration for national environmental degradation, which draws on colonial and racialized imaginaries of nature in order to rationalize further border restrictions and ‘protect’ the ‘nativist stewardship’ of national nature,” they wrote in a recent paper. And these ideas aren’t new: John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and often called the father of the American national parks, discriminated against Black and Indigenous people. 

This idea is based off a multitude of ethical problems and scientific inaccuracies—namely that the majority of climate change issues stem from overproduction and consumption in major economies, while poorer nations will be the ones to bear the worst brunt of climate change. 

Myth no. 3: Corporations are already doing the necessary work

Greenwashing is everywhere—from buying clothes to taking vacations to offsetting carbon footprints by planting trees. But it very much exists for once-climate denying industries, especially fossil fuels. 

For example, Chevron may have set some goals for minimizing emissions, but the vast majority of its footprint comes from scope 3 emissions (all of the emissions associated with making and delivering a product) which isn’t addressed anywhere in its climate goals. Instead of accounting for emissions associated with oil and gas, according to environmental law group Client Earth, the company “will develop a renewable energy business, invest in ‘low-carbon technologies’ and sell offsets ‘to our customers around the world to help them achieve their own lower-carbon goals.‘ ” Still, Chevron’s shiny advertisements and rampant use of the terms net-zero and sustainable fuels don’t give the slightest clue that it hasn’t revealed how, or even if it plans to, move away from fossil fuels.

A similarly concerning trend is “wokewashing,” where corporations pose as champions for people of color and women through advertisements. Exxon’s ad, which centers around the story of an immigrant from India who now works for the fossil fuel giant, is one example.   

“Big oil companies now spend a lot of money to convince us that they are dealing with the problem, although their claims are highly misleading,” says Maibach. “They have large advertising and PR budgets which they use to convince us that they are responsible actors who are working to solve climate change.”

Myth no. 4: We’re doomed

The final kind of new climate change denial is the belief that the apocalypse is inevitable, and there’s nothing we can do about the climate crisis. And while global warming is certainly an ever-looming and scary issue, it doesn’t have to signal the end of the world. 

“The kind of hope we need—rational, stubborn hope—isn’t about positive thinking, but it doesn’t begin with imitating an ostrich, either,” Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, wrote in New Scientist. “It starts by acknowledging just how serious climate change is and what is at risk: the future of civilization as we know it.”

Luckily, we know what we have to do—namely drop emissions to keep the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, while still prioritizing protection of biodiversity and human populations. But we’re cutting it close to the roughly 2030 goalline. 

“While it’s true that our climate has already been changed and that it will change for many decades to come, the actions we can take to limit the extent of the change will have huge benefits,” Maibach says, “many of which begin to pay off immediately in the form of cleaner air and water, better health, and more jobs.”

---

Sara Kiley Watson is an Assistant Editor at Popular Science, where she has led sustainability coverage since 2021.

[Wannabehippie]

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

4 New Myths About Climate Change—and How to Debunk Them

 

Pushing off climate change policy isn’t that far removed from denying its existence.

Popular Science

• Sara Kiley Watson 

More from Popular Science

Misinformation and delay are just climate denial tactics with a layer of green-washing. 

Not much more than 10 years ago, it may have seemed like climate change denial was an ordinary, if not misinformed, opinion shared among loads of people. Nowadays, with climate disasters plaguing most everywhere in the world, it’s not so practical to live in denial. As of September 2021, only one in every 10 Americans thinks climate change isn’t happening, but around three out of every four believes it is. 

Of course, some leaders still hold on to the constantly debunked idea that climate change isn’t happening. But businesses, even fossil fuel ones, are changing their tune ever so slightly. 

“Although some politicians continue to traffic in climate denial, corporations are too smart for that because they realize it will alienate most of their consumers,” says Edward Maibach, director of George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication. Climate change denial now comes in a variety of embellished, truthful-sounding opinions—but in reality, they’re just as mythical as the idea that climate change is a hoax. Here are three examples of those altered arguments.

---

Myth no. 1: Clean energy will hurt working-class people

It’s no secret that in the past, renewable energy was a far off and expensive alternative to fossil fuels. But today we know that isn’t the case: Solar and wind were the cheapest sources of energy in the world in 2020, and prices continue to drop. “Renewables present countries tied to coal with an economically attractive phase-out agenda that ensures they meet growing energy demand, while saving costs, adding jobs, boosting growth and meeting climate ambition,” Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said in June. 

Still, there are plenty of op-eds boldly stating that renewable energy policy will hurt the vulnerable—often to make the case for expanding fossil fuels. But these arguments are simplistic and overlook the bigger, more important picture, says John Cook, a research fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Australia. 

“More broadly, these types of arguments ignore the harmful impacts of climate change that damage society and the economy—the costs of climate inaction will be far greater than the costs of climate action,” Cook says. 

Some opponents have brought up concerns about job losses, specifically in the US, which despite global growth during the pandemic, saw a downtick in employment. Whether it’s fossil fuel workers in already-struggling communities or clean energy workers who lost jobs during COVID-19, policy must prioritize working class people in the energy transition.

Myth no. 2: Scientists and activists are overreacting; opponents are being realistic 

Another way that climate denial views are being recast is in “culture war terms,” says Cook, by painting proponents of climate action as “extremist and pushing political agendas.” One example is the idea of “climate realism”—which supposedly exists to counteract panic. Fossil fuel-funded groups like the Heartland Institute have gone so far as to find their own anti-Greta Thunberg who pushes against “climate alarmism”—the idea that the climate crisis must be combated with serious urgency. 

In reality, we’ve been in the loop on climate change for at least 62 years—and that we’re down to the wire to to keep the worst impacts from happening. Making climate change political and dragging out decision making is in some ways, a new excuse to do nothing at all. 

“These kinds of arguments tap into people’s social identity and are quite corrosive as they have a polarizing impact on society,” Cook says. “When issues become culturally or politically polarized, progress becomes more difficult.”

Another reason politics and social identity have been injected into climate conspiracies is through a fringe movement that correlates immigration with environmental catastrophe. This has also been named “eco-bordering” by British political scientists Joe Turner and Dan Bailey. “This discourse seeks to blame immigration for national environmental degradation, which draws on colonial and racialized imaginaries of nature in order to rationalize further border restrictions and ‘protect’ the ‘nativist stewardship’ of national nature,” they wrote in a recent paper. And these ideas aren’t new: John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and often called the father of the American national parks, discriminated against Black and Indigenous people. 

This idea is based off a multitude of ethical problems and scientific inaccuracies—namely that the majority of climate change issues stem from overproduction and consumption in major economies, while poorer nations will be the ones to bear the worst brunt of climate change. 

Myth no. 3: Corporations are already doing the necessary work

Greenwashing is everywhere—from buying clothes to taking vacations to offsetting carbon footprints by planting trees. But it very much exists for once-climate denying industries, especially fossil fuels. 

For example, Chevron may have set some goals for minimizing emissions, but the vast majority of its footprint comes from scope 3 emissions (all of the emissions associated with making and delivering a product) which isn’t addressed anywhere in its climate goals. Instead of accounting for emissions associated with oil and gas, according to environmental law group Client Earth, the company “will develop a renewable energy business, invest in ‘low-carbon technologies’ and sell offsets ‘to our customers around the world to help them achieve their own lower-carbon goals.‘ ” Still, Chevron’s shiny advertisements and rampant use of the terms net-zero and sustainable fuels don’t give the slightest clue that it hasn’t revealed how, or even if it plans to, move away from fossil fuels.

A similarly concerning trend is “wokewashing,” where corporations pose as champions for people of color and women through advertisements. Exxon’s ad, which centers around the story of an immigrant from India who now works for the fossil fuel giant, is one example.   

“Big oil companies now spend a lot of money to convince us that they are dealing with the problem, although their claims are highly misleading,” says Maibach. “They have large advertising and PR budgets which they use to convince us that they are responsible actors who are working to solve climate change.”

Myth no. 4: We’re doomed

The final kind of new climate change denial is the belief that the apocalypse is inevitable, and there’s nothing we can do about the climate crisis. And while global warming is certainly an ever-looming and scary issue, it doesn’t have to signal the end of the world. 

“The kind of hope we need—rational, stubborn hope—isn’t about positive thinking, but it doesn’t begin with imitating an ostrich, either,” Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, wrote in New Scientist. “It starts by acknowledging just how serious climate change is and what is at risk: the future of civilization as we know it.”

Luckily, we know what we have to do—namely drop emissions to keep the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, while still prioritizing protection of biodiversity and human populations. But we’re cutting it close to the roughly 2030 goalline. 

“While it’s true that our climate has already been changed and that it will change for many decades to come, the actions we can take to limit the extent of the change will have huge benefits,” Maibach says, “many of which begin to pay off immediately in the form of cleaner air and water, better health, and more jobs.”

---

Sara Kiley Watson is an Assistant Editor at Popular Science, where she has led sustainability coverage since 2021.

The US Government is "re-evaluating" past documents to "reflect reality" on climate change. To me this is them putting in rigged data, to support the coal, and oil industries. This document is being re-done by someone from the fossil fuel  industry. 
I don't want to get too political here, but what the hell?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

2 minutes ago, Wannabehippie said:

The US Government is "re-evaluating" past documents to "reflect reality" on climate change. To me this is them putting in rigged data, to support the coal, and oil industries. This document is being re-done by someone from the fossil fuel  industry. 
I don't want to get too political here, but what the hell?

 

We have a kakistocracy 

   ( - government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens    )

                      ...  for a government made possible by voters having dimmed intellect, and corrupted and/or poorly formed morality. 

That parenthetic is the formal definition of kakistocracy - give me a better description for this administration.  You can't.   

That's what the hell why.  Just sayn'