Weather is chaos theory in motion, climate is basically weather averaged over time, and climate trends are the patterns that that climate data makes on various charts and graphs and spreadsheets. It’s not unusual to see jags and dips and spikes in climate records, in fact, that’s what you’d strongly expect to see. But for fossil fuel shills who make a lucrative living deceiving the public about anthropogenic climate change, any dip is good news. Ignore the spikes and trend lines, play up only the dips, and you can present “evidence” the planet must be cooling with every new record warm month and every new hottest year! It’s nice work, if you can get it, and if you have the stomach for lying your sleazy ass off.

Dips have been hard to come by lately, but there was a slight sideways move in the NASA GISS climate record on the heels of an exceptionally hot year almost 20 years ago. This statistical artifact was warmly received by the usual suspects and eagerly christened The Pause:

The skeptics had for years suggested that following the then-record warm year of 1998 and throughout the beginning of the 21st century, global warming had slowed down or “paused.” But the 2015 paper, led by NOAA’s Thomas Karl, employed an update to the agency’s influential temperature dataset, and in particular to its record of the planet’s ocean temperatures, to suggest that really, the recent period was perfectly consistent with the much longer warming trend.

Pauses happen in complex systems. Days get warmer through spring and into summer, but not every succeeding spring day is slightly warmer than the one right before it and slightly cooler than the day that follows. A pause in the warming of the biosphere due to industrial emissions would have been possible—in fact over time it’s highly probable—and dips or pauses would no more spell the end of anthropogenic climate change than a brisk spring day would negate the inevitable onset of summer. 

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) distinguished himself this week by standing with Democrats in opposition to Obamacare repeal. Having taken such a principled stand, Manchin apparently has make a correction, and stand up as the only Democrat volunteering to help Republicans "repair" Obamacare.

Manchin has told GOP leaders that he's "happy to sit down with you to see if we can find a pathway forward," he told his home state's MetroNews radio station on Thursday. Before his election in 2010, Manchin added, Democrats passed Obamacare "with no bipartisan support. Last night, my Republican friends and colleagues, with no Democrats, voted 51 [to 48] to throw it out. To fix it, it's going to take 60."

As a new member of Senate Democratic leadership, Manchin could face a political minefield in working to secure support among other moderate members of the minority for Obamacare talks with Republicans. […]

"If you don’t have agreement with at least eight or 10 Democrats" on changes to Obamacare, Manchin told MetroNews, "it will be easy to try to throw it out" but "almost impossible" to replace the law.

He's not going to find at least 8 or 10 Democrats to do that. This is clearly Manchin thinking about 2018 in West Virginia, so more power to him in his home state. But he can do that and be helpful, too.

Remember back to 2009 when Sen. Max Baucus, then the Democratic chair of the finance committee, spent month after month after month meeting with and negotiating with Republican Chuck Grassley, trying to find the sweet spot for Republican support of healthcare reform, something Grassley had no intent of helping with? That would be a model for the senator from West Virginia.

Senator Manchin? Be like Chuck Grassley.

The traditional story about the formation of our beautiful moon is the single impact theory. But the early solar system was a violent, chaotic place. There’s room for more than one titanic collision. And some new analysis suggests multiple large impacts may explain the modern day Earth-moon system even better in some key ways:

The new model is consistent with science's current understanding of the formation of Earth. In its last stages of the growth, Earth experienced many giant impacts with other bodies. Each of these impacts contributed more material to the proto-Earth, until it reached its current size. "We believe Earth had many previous moons," said Prof. Perets, who added that, "a previously formed moon could therefore already exist when another moon-forming giant impact occurs."

The tidal forces from Earth could cause moons to slowly migrate outwards (the current Moon is slowly doing that at a pace of about 1 cm a year). A pre-existing moon would slowly move out by the time another moon forms. However, their mutual gravitational attraction would eventually cause the moons to affect each other, and change their orbits. "It's likely that small moons formed through the process could cross orbits, collide and merge," said lead author Prof. Rufo. "A long series of such moon-moon collisions could gradually build-up a bigger moon -- the Moon we see today.”

• Speaking of collisions, we just missed being part of a comparatively safe one earlier this week, and while we can’t go back in time to watch the great impacts, there might be an even bigger one between two stars that it could be easily visible from Earth in 2022:

This "death spiral" will likely end in a "lumnious red nova." As implied by its name, these types of stellar explosions are red in color, and are thought to be caused by this kind of binary collision. The nova would increase the stars' brightness by about 1,000 times, and would theoretically become visible to the naked eye on Earth.

Donald Trump says he’s all about jobs, but at the same time he wants a federal hiring freeze. Supposedly there are just too many federal workers and the government should save money by getting rid of them. Here's the reality:

• There were an average of 2.8 million federal employees in 2016, representing only 1.9 percent of the nation’s 144 million civilian[2] jobs. This share ties with 2015 for the lowest federal share ever recorded, with data going back to 1939, and it’s far below its post-World War II average of 3.3 percent. (See Figure 1.)
• The number of federal jobs rose by just 18,000 (0.6 percent) over the last eight years; in contrast, the number of jobs in the country grew by 11.3 million (8.3 percent) during the same period.[3]
• The number of federal jobs as a share of the nation’s population in 2016 was tied with 2014 and 2015 for its lowest share on record.

Not to mention, these federal jobs include little things like the Centers for Disease Control, Medicare, national parks, food inspection, and other services and protections that many of us kinda like. “Freeze federal hiring” is something that sounds good to some people if you strip it of the specifics so they don’t think about what exactly is being cut. If Trump followed through with the kind of big cuts he’s implying, chances are it would not be a popular move.

Back in early December, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois’ 5th Congressional District was the first Democrat to announce he would not be attending the inauguration of Donald Trump January 20 because the pr*sident-elect is a fountain of "hatred, bigotry and prejudice." He told CNN on December 2:

"I can't go to this inauguration because he continues to spew hatred, bigotry and prejudice—even after he said he was going to bring us all together, he was going to unify us, but he's not." 

Since then, 15 16 17 others, have announced in interviews, written statements on the floor of the House that they, too, have decided they cannot in good conscience attend. No senators have yet declared that they will not attend. One boycotter, Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents California’s 13th CD,saidin a January 12 statement:

“Inaugurations are celebratory events, a time to welcome the peaceful transition of power and honor the new administration. On January 20th, I will not be celebrating or honoring an incoming president who rode racism, sexism, xenophobia and bigotry to the White House.

“Donald Trump ran one of the most divisive and prejudiced campaigns in modern history. He began his campaign by insulting Mexican immigrants, pledging to build a wall between the United States and Mexico and then spent a year and a half denigrating communities of color and normalizing bigotry. He called women ‘pigs’, stoked Islamophobia, and attacked a Gold Star family. He mocked a disabled reporter and appealed to people’s worst instincts.  I cannot in good conscience attend an inauguration that would celebrate this divisive approach to governance.

“After the election, many hoped the president-elect would turn toward unifying our country. Instead he has shown us that he will utilize the same tools of division he employed on the campaign trail as our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. We need look no further than the team he is assembling to find signals that the era of Trump will be one of chaos and devastation for our communities.

Welcome back, Saturday Campaign D-I-Y’ers! For those who tune in, welcome to the Nuts & Bolts of a Democratic campaign. Each week, we discuss issues that help drive successful campaigns. If you’ve missed prior diaries, please visit our group or follow Nuts & Bolts Guide.

During a campaign, candidates and others work to make sure they have good relationships with the press. Candidates can have a much easier time, though, if the party organization or leadership within the party keeps those relationships open and friendly.

Today, we’re going to talk about the importance of building good press relationships.

Get to know the reporters in your state house.

Every state house in America has a press office. In many state houses, it is in the basement and out of the way. Despite the rise of online media, it is truly your print media, newspapers and periodicals who do the heavy lifting on reporting in your state government. The vast majority of the time, when you see a news report on TV or a national about your state, it is because a state house reporter for a local paper chased the story down and did the leg work to give them a starting point.

Knowing who your state house reporters are is important in order to make sure your side of an issue gets heard. If state house reporters have a good idea of the leaders within your party and organization who can speak on specific issues or political points, you are far more likely to get the right quotes in papers to tell your narrative.

Reporters live on deadlines and details. Be aware of both of these factors. Make it easy for them to do their job. They will appreciate it.

Remember in 2012 when the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced that they’re removing funding from Planned Parenthood? Fortunately that quickly backfired as people rallied to support the literally lifesaving organization and Komen backpedaled. Unfortunately the anti-choicers are back at it five years later: 

Sigh. Here we go again.

One of the bright spots in the dark rage that sprung during the 2012 fiasco was the outpouring of personal stories from patients about their relationship with the organization. A project started by media technologist Deanna Zandt created a home for some of these stories on a Tumblr titled “Planned Parenthood Saved Me,” featuring user-submitted stories of current and former patients. In light of the recent move by Paul Ryan, Deanna has relaunched the project to highlight stories like this:

With GOPers starting 2017 by working hard to take away healthcare access instead of, oh, helping Americans, it’s time to give them a reality check. If you have a story that you want featured, visit Planned Parenthood Saved Me to have your voice heard.

Today’s is the first of four regional Future Forums the Democratic National Committee will be holding between now and February 4. There will be no vote today, but viewers can catch what the candidates have to say at this livestream ​of democrats.org.

Jon Ralston of the Nevada Independent will moderate all the candidate forums.

Here’s the livestream:

Candidates for Chair:

Sally Boynton Brown, Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director, President of Association of State Democratic Executive Directors
Ray Buckley, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, Association of State Democratic Parties Chair
Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, IN
Keith Ellison, U.S. Representative (MN-5)
Jehmu Greene, Fox News Political Analyst
Jaime Harrison, South Carolina Democratic Party Chair
Tom Perez, secretary of Labor.

Candidates for Vice Chair:
Michael Blake, New York State Assemblyman (79th District)
Melissa Byrne, Former National GOTV Digital Director for Bernie 2016
Mitchell Caesar, Former Broward County Democratic Party Chair
Grace Meng, U.S. Representative (NY-6)
Elizabeth Jaff, Head of Business Development and Campaigns for Crowdpac, Inc.
Lorna M. Johnson, Honorary Consul for Jamaica in Los Angeles
Latoia Jones, Assistant Director of Human Rights, American Federation of Teachers and Co-Founder of Black & Engaged
Rick Palacio, Colorado Democratic Party Chair
Adam Parkhomenko
 
Candidates for Vice Chair of Civic Engagement and Voter Participation:

Karen Carter Peterson, Louisiana Democratic Party Chair
Melissa Fazli, Executive Board Member and Delegate for the California Democratic Party for Assembly District 55
 
Candidates for Secretary:

Ana Cuprill, Wyoming Democratic Party Chair
Roberta Lange, Nevada Democratic Party Chair
Jason Rae, DNC Youth Council Chair
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, DNC Secretary and Former Baltimore Mayor
 
Candidates for Treasurer:

Joyce Amico, President of JPCM Incorporated
William Derrough, Managing Director of Moelis & Company
 
Candidates for National Finance Chair:

Henry Munoz III, DNC National Finance Chair

The Palo Alto school board joined the resistance this week when it voted 4-0 to make its campuses "sanctuaries" for undocumented students. Jacqueline Lee writes:

The resolution says Palo Alto Unified School District officials will not interfere with law enforcement but will not cooperate with immigration enforcement action except as required by law.

Requests from federal immigration agents for students’ information will go to the superintendent for review and approval unless there is an immediate threat to public safety.

The resolution also means that the district will not disclose personally identifiable information in a student’s educational records to agencies without written parental consent, judicial order or a subpoena.

This separates the school district from the city of Palo Alto, which is not technically a sanctuary city. It’s also a stance that more and more school districts are adopting in anticipation of the incoming administration. 

School boards in Minneapolis, Denver, and Los Angeles have also recently taken steps to declare safe havens and remind families that ICE agents are not allowed on campus. 

DocHoc at Blue Oklahoma writes—Oklahoma Extremism: Inhofe Claims Pruitt Ideal For EPA:

For the record, then, on the right-wing extremism issue, here’s Oklahoma’s own infamous global warming denier U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe official statement about Trump’s selection to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who is none other than Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, another climate change skeptic:

Scott Pruitt is the ideal candidate to lead the EPA. Pruitt has seen first-hand the abuses of power at the hands of this agency and has fought back to ensure environmental quality without sacrificing jobs. Scott is an expert in constitutional law, and understands the fundamental element of balance necessary between the states and the federal government. I look forward to working with Chairman Barrasso and the EPW committee to move Scott’s nomination swiftly and fairly through the committee and to the Senate floor.

What does this “balance” even mean? This is what I believe it means to Inhofe and Pruitt: States with deep fossil-fuel reserves should be allowed to damage the planet in local ways, such as all the earthquakes caused by the fracking process here in Oklahoma, to the larger concern of rising sea levels because carbon emissions are accelerating the greenhouse effect, which leads to the melting of Arctic ice. My argument is that Pruitt and Inhofe believe the profits of oil and gas companies render environmental arguments and evidence obsolete. Maybe they truly believe in their position, despite huge evidence that global warming is harming the planet, or maybe they simply don’t care.

When President Barack Obama made his farewell address Tuesday night in Chicago, he mused about two of his greatest achievements in one of his biggest applause lines.

"If I had told you that we would win marriage equality and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens," he said, "you might have said our sights were set a little too high."

His supporters ate it up. But when it comes to the future of those two great legacies, one stands a much better chance of enduring the incoming administration. Indeed, the Affordable Care Act is now in peril for precisely the same reason that marriage equality stands a solid chance of surviving a GOP assault: public opinion.

The main difference between these two advances and their durability is the fact that while the president and his team shied away from an aggressive campaign to win over the public on health care, the LGBTQ movement spent decades convincing people that love is love. To be sure, the same-sex marriage debate experienced its own fits and starts, but it was primarily driven by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals themselves at millions of kitchen tables across the country. It was an emergent movement in which regular folks became activists simply by bearing their humanity to their friends, neighbors and relatives.

By the time President Obama endorsed the freedom to marry in 2012 roughly half the nation supported it and today that number sits right around 60 percent. That's probably why the topic tops Gallup’s list of issues on which Americans believe Obama "made progress" during his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say things have improved for lesbians and gays on Obama’s watch, while they are evenly split at 43 percent about whether health care improved or lost ground.

As I noted in my book, that shift in public sentiment was mostly caused by instances of people knowing someone who was gay growing significantly over time. In 1994, for instance, a Newsweek poll found that 53 percent of Americans said they knew a lesbian or gay person, but that number had risen to 78 percent by 2008 in the same poll. Those human connections served as the antidote to a long and dirty disinformation campaign waged against the LGBTQ community by social conservatives.