I don’t know why I was so dense when I posted this story that it didn’t occur to me what was going on, especially after Hakeem Jeffries weirdly tweeted that Swalwell, as near to the bottom of the ethics barrel as a House member can be (but not alone there) was too disgusting to be a Democratic Governor but not so horrible that he couldn’t stay in Congress. I believe it’s because my brain just won’t process how Machiavellian, corrupt and dishonest the Democratic Party of 2026 (actually 2008 through 2026) has become. Maybe I can’t grasp that because so, so many otherwise good people in my life still embrace this indefensibly organization and its anti-Democracy, anti-“Truth Justice and The American Way” proto-totalitarian drift. Maybe it’s that Cognitive Dissonance Scale. The damn thing is pulling the Democrats up from the depths they deserve because people I have high in positive territory for other reasons—love, trust, loyalty, respect—are chained to the party like a luxury cruise ship to an anchor.

Heck, I don’t know how I missed it, but I did. (Commenter James Flood didn’t, I know) So once again I ask rhetorically, “What’s going on here?” to answer: This…

I find this mordantly amusing, but I wonder how many climate change hysterics will react to it by saying, “SEE???”

The Yale School of the Environment announced this week,

“Scientists have uncovered a “blind spot” in the research on rising seas, revealing that tens of millions of people thought safe from coastal flooding are at risk of inundation. Across much of the world, sea levels are higher than previously assumed and land is sinking faster…

These findings come from two major new studies that are reshaping our understanding of the threats posed by rising tides and sinking land and underlining the imminent risk of inundation facing tens of millions of people in some of the world’s largest megacities, say researchers not involved in the studies.

“The impacts of sea level rise under climate change have been systematically underestimated,” concludes Matt Palmer, a specialist on sea level rise at the U.K. Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science. “We could see devastating impacts much earlier than predicted — particularly in the Global South.”

“Taken jointly, these two papers paint a considerably more concerning picture than either would in isolation,” says Franck Ghomsi, an oceanographer at the University of Cape Town. “We are seeing an emerging body of research that rewrites the story of coastal vulnerability.”

…Data from tidal gauges shows that actual sea levels worldwide are on average 9.4 to 10.6 inches higher than predicted by models.”

If the author of this piece were under cross examination in a courtroom, the question would be: “Interesting. So you are saying that we should believe those studies now by the same “experts” who have been mistakenly reporting results that they now admit were vastly miscalculated. Is that correct?”

There is also the little matter of confirmation bias, which the “experts” choose to ignore. The climate change industry is committed to this theory, and researchers must have been frustrated and fearful.

“We keep predicting imminent disasters and issuing deadlines that pass without the dire results we promised! People are beginning to think we’re dishonest hacks.What shall we do?”

“What we need is a study that explains why our models have all failed…”

“Brilliant! Let’s do one!”

And so they did.

Of course, maybe this one is accurate and correct. Based on the track record of these “experts,” however, basing policies on its results and spending billions would still be a matter of faith rather than science. Or competence. Or responsible conduct.

The “Wise Latina” is an embarrassment, and it is good that Sonia reminded us of her obnoxious wokism since it has been briefly over-shadowed by Biden’s DEI appointment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. That embarrassment was recently discussed (again) here.

But Justice Sotomayor recently used an appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law to insult fellow Court member Bret Kavanaugh using the favorite leftist cheap-shot, attacking his “privilege” as an ad hominem approach avoiding a substantive argument regarding the law. Sonia has neither the wit nor legal acumen to debate Kavanaugh on the merits.

Sotomayor was referencing a Supreme Court stay of a partisan judge’s order preventing I.C.E. agents in the Los Angeles area from stopping and questioning individuals suspected of being illegal aliens. Kavanaugh, agreeing with the Court’s stay, wrote in part,