An effort to explore the temperatures to which people warm or cool their houses started by finding something obvious, but then moved into more intriguing territory. With 11 percent of energy in the United States devoted to household temperature control, understanding the drivers of people’s choices could be much more important than it seems.The capacity to set conditions within our home environment has been one of the great blessings of the modern age, and a big part of the reason many people have migrated to locations they would previously have rejected. However, more than half of American homeowners do not currently adjust their thermostats during the day, leaving the heat or cooling on even when there is no one home. Minor adjustments of the target temperature to take outside conditions into account are presumably rarer still. Dr Dritjon Gruda of the Universidade Católica Portuguesa and Professor Paul Hanges of the University of Maryland set out to explore this stubbornness, and the motivation for the temperatures chosen, in the hope this would lead to insights into how to become more flexible.It’s well known that people become adapted, at least a little, to the climate in which they were raised and can struggle in a different climate zone. So when Gruda and Hanges surveyed 2,128 people about their household temperatures, the conditions in the house in which they grew up inevitably loomed large.But what the pair found was that community also matters. People who bonded with others in their new city were more likely to adjust their thermostats to match those of their fellow residents. Those who didn’t feel like they belonged, kept temperatures more similar to where they grew up. Gruda and Hanges refer to the relevant metric as “community fit”, measured not only by local friendship networks but by feeling attached to their new city. Using New York as an example, those arriving from hotter locations who didn’t feel like they had received a metaphorical warm welcome felt the need to make their houses warmer, as if to compensate. The findings raise questions about how something as desirable as community fit can be increased. More immediately, however, Gruda and Hanges see them as useful for those trying to nudge people toward temperature control more suited to their new homes.It’s important that people be able to choose the temperature that’s right for them, but heating an empty house is a bad use of money, even without the environmental consequences.Moreover, for most people, a degree or two away from their default setting wouldn’t affect their comfort at all. However, it would, very often, affect their wallets. In a warm climate, turning the heat off when out or letting the house be a few degrees cooler might make little difference to winter fuel bills. In a cold one, such moves can matter a lot. The same goes in reverse for summer cooling – slight flexibility can ease the strain on the grid when demand for air conditioning is at its peak. Recognizing the social and environmental benefits, as well as the financial ones, policy makers have been seeking to encourage more flexibility.After Jimmy Carter was widely mocked for wearing a sweater in the White House to try to set an example, financial incentives and values-based messaging have been tried. Results have been disappointing."Policymakers may need to pivot towards campaigns that deeply resonate with the unique identity and values of individual communities,” the authors write. At the same time, they acknowledge their study is observational, not a randomly controlled trial, so there may be other factors they have missed.Nevertheless, to get people to adopt thermostats better for them and the planet, it seems it would help to make them feel at home. To the extent that can’t be changed, different approaches might be needed for those feeling alienated from their new environment compared to those who’ve found their place.The study is open access in PLOS Climate.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has revealed their final plan to kill nearly half a million owls. The motive behind the mass cull? The survival of another species of owl.In a Final Environmental Impact Statement published this week, the agency proposed the culling of around 450,000 invasive barred owls over a period of 30 years. Half a million might sound like a lot of animals, although it’s worth noting the plan would result in the annual removal of less than 0.5 percent of the country’s barred owls. The proposal has been put forward as a way to protect the Northern spotted owl, a native species in western North America that is becoming increasingly threatened due to competition from the larger and faster-reproducing barred owl. The growing range of the invasive owl could also jeopardize the future of another related species, the California spotted owl.“Barred owl management is not about one owl versus another. Without actively managing barred owls, northern spotted owls will likely go extinct in all or the majority of their range, despite decades of collaborative conservation efforts,” Kessina Lee, Oregon State Supervisor at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, said in a statement. Barred owls are native to eastern North America, but started moving west of the Mississippi River at the beginning of the 20th century due to human-induced changes in the Great Plains and northern boreal forests. Northern spotted owl perches in a tree.Image credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service (Public Domain)Despite looking similar to Northern spotted owls, barred owls are larger, more aggressive, and can readily adapt their broad diet. Their invasion of the West has put a heavy strain on the Northern spotted owl, decreasing their populations by up to 65 to 85 percent between 1995 and 2017 in some areas. If the plan goes ahead, trained professionals and landowners will be allowed to shoot the barred owls in around half of the areas where spotted and invasive barred owls co-exist within the northern spotted owl’s range. Public hunting of barred owls will not be allowed.Some might wonder whether it's morally right to kill one species to save another. However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is required to protect threatened animals like the Northern spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. According to the agency's research, this cull is the best way to achieve that. “Barred owl removal, like all invasive species management, is not something the Service takes lightly. The Service has a legal responsibility to do all it can to prevent the extinction of the federally listed northern spotted owl and support its recovery, while also addressing significant threats to California spotted owls,” explained Lee.The plans aren’t sitting well with everyone, though. Along with raising ethical and practical concerns, animal rights groups have criticized the cost of the plan: an estimated $235,000,000, making it one of the most expensive endangered species management projects ever.“The Fish and Wildlife Service is turning from protector to persecutor of American wildlife. Its plan is wildly expensive without protecting a single acre of forest habitat, and it is doomed to fail because there’s no way for the agency to prevent surviving owls from recolonizing nest sites,” Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, said in a statement.“Every sensible person wants to save spotted owls from extinction, but strategies that kill a half-million look-a-like forest owls must be taken off the table in violating our norms about proper treatment of any native owl species in North America,” Pacelle added.

Mexico is racing to evacuate sea turtle eggs from the beaches south of Cancun ahead of the approach of Hurricane Beryl.Hurricane Beryl became the earliest Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, before weakening to a Category 4 on Tuesday. On Wednesday it weakened again, but it is still expected to be a significant storm as it makes landfall on the East coast of the US and Mexico."Reports from a NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft indicate that maximum sustained winds are near 120 mph (195 km/h) with higher gusts," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains. "Beryl is a category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Weakening is forecast during the next day or two, though Beryl is forecast to remain a hurricane until it makes landfall on the Yucatan Peninsula."  While humans prepare, turtles do not have such advanced weather warning systems in place. Last October, Hurricane Otis caused chaos for leatherback turtles during nesting season, burying many nests in the sand."As part of their reproductive process, female leatherback turtles journey back to the same beach where they were born. They can lay between five and seven nests per season, each of which holds approximately 100 eggs," the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) explains. "However, for every 1,000 hatchlings born, it’s estimated that only one leatherback turtle will make it to adulthood."Following the hurricane, there was a concerted rescue attempt to remove the sand, and give turtles veterinary care when needed. Now, as Hurricane Beryl approaches, Mexico is attempting to move carey turtle eggs away from danger, digging recently laid eggs out of the sand, moving them in coolers of sand, and transferring them to safer locations, AP News reports. In normal circumstances, these eggs should be left well alone.“Look, it’s not the best thing to do," Biologist and sea turtle expert Graciela Tiburcio told AP News, "but we are facing an emergency in which if they don’t take them out, they all could be lost."As well as moving the turtles, conservationists are using sandbags to protect the turtles from strong waves expected to hit the coast as the hurricane hits late on Thursday or early on Friday.

You know those drawings [see below] of man's evolution in reverse, going from modern Homo Sapiens to a primate on all fours? That's what CNN's brutal montage of Biden's debate performances over the years brought to mind this July 4th morning. Morning Joe took the holiday off, perhaps reeling from the torrent of bad news for Biden. Instead, the show reran past interviews, featuring Mika's chat with Kamala Harris about abortion. One benefit for Morning Joe: they were spared having to explain Scarborough's continuing absence! But over at CNN This Morning, Kasie Hunt hosted a regular episode. It was highlighted by a brutal montage that CNN had assembled of Biden's debate performances over the years, putting his decline on stark display. It began with a clip of the 2012 VP debate, in which a sharp and smirking Biden put down Paul Ryan. Next was the 2020 presidential debate, in which a marginally competent but clearly diminished Biden managed to make a point. And finally, that disastrously iconic clip from last week's debate, ending in Biden's piteous "We finally beat Medicare." Meghan Hays, a former Biden aide, was playing defense and taking incoming from all sides. Lance Trover, a former aide to Doug Bergum, said that the Biden campaign has a credibility problem. He pointed to the fierce attacks the campaign had launched in response the recent Wall Street Journal article reporting that Biden is "slipping." Guess the Journal was onto something! Seconding Trover on the Biden campaign's credibility problem, Alex Thompson of Axios said that reporters "don't believe them [the Biden campaign people] anymore." Hays tried to push back, arguing that what counts is whom voters, not reporters, believe. Hunt then stepped in: "voters are less willing" than reporters to believe the Biden people! Thompson then administered something of a coup de grace, saying: "A lot of reporters are catching up to where voters have already been. Voters have already said forever, in every poll for over a year that they thought, like 70% of Americans can't agree on anything, except they think that Joe Biden's too old." Ouch! Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 7/4/24 6:08 am EDT LANCE TROVER: I think we also need to take a step back, because the issue of credibility here is because they have spent the las three-and-a-half years. There have been questions that had been raised for three-and-a-half years. And this White House has said, time and again oh, no, no, no. Everything's fine. Despite, don't believe what you see on TV when some of these things happen. That's the issue we have right now, is credibility. The Wall Street Journal had a story not one month ago. Very well sourced, well-documented story about the president's ability to serve and his fitness for office. And this White House, enraged, went out and berated every reporter and anybody else who dared to ask about it.  So the underpinnings of this as we get into their shifting explanations, are that they don't have a lot of credibility going into this. And then last Thursday night happens, and lo and behold, 50 million people -- KASIE HUNT: Look, to the issue of credibility and where this has, has stood. We pulled together a couple examples of debate performances gone by from President Biden. Let's just watch what it was like. This is a VP debate, followed by a presidential debate in 2020, followed by what we saw on Thursday. Watch  JOE BIDEN [2012 VP debate]: [Smirks] It has never been done before. PAUL RYAN: It's been done a couple of times -- BIDEN: It has never been done before. RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth, Ronald Reagan -- BIDEN: So now you're Jack Kennedy. RYAN: Ronald Reagan. Republicans and Democrats.  BIDEN: This is amazing. BIDEN: [2020 debate] It is what it is because you are who you are. That's why it is. The president has no plan. He hasn't laid out anything. He knew all the way back in February how serious this crisis was. BIDEN: [2024 debate] Dealing with everything we have to do with, uh, look, if, we finally beat Medicare. HUNT: Megan Hayes, it's, it's tough. I mean, which of those presidents did you know when you were in the White House? MEGHAN HAYS: I did not know the one that showed up on Thursday. That was not the person I worked for, and not, so that's, you know, but again, I left the Oval over a year-and-a-half ago, so I don't know what he's like now to work for. I was on the '20 campaign, so I was definitely there up to the re-elect, so I saw that person as well.  It is hard to watch. These are hard to watch moments, but I think the issue here is, was that anomaly like they say, or is that a less frequent person and is he able to do what he's been doing. And is the person who showed up in North Carolina and the person who's been showing up since, is that the president that he needs to go out, and the voters to decide. HUNT: Pelosi said, is this an episode or a condition? ALEX THOMPSON: And he hasn't answered that question conclusively, and I don't think a 15-minutes or 20-minute or however long the interview with George Stephanopoulos is going to satisfy those questions now. He has now said that he is going to do the George Stephanopoulos interview. He is going to do the big press conference next week with reporters. The problem is, like, I don't know if it's going to be enough. This is still a president that has done less interviews and less unscripted interactions with reporters than any in history. To Lance's point, there is a credibility problem. Reporters do not believe them anymore, and that's part of the problem. HAYS: But it's not up to the reporters to believe.  HUNT: But voters are less willing.  HAYS: 100%. But I'm just saying that it's, I don't know if it's a credibility problem with voters, or if it's with reporters. And that's what it needs -- he needs a sight [?]. If he's staying in then he needs to take his message to the voters. THOMPSON: But don't you think part of the thing that's happening now is a lot of reporters are catching up to where voters have already been. Like, voters, voters have already said forever, in every poll for over a year that they thought, like 70% of Americans can't agree on anything, except they think that Joe Biden's too old. HAYS: That's that's totally fair. I'm just saying, it's not up to reporters to know if he's credible or not. It's up to the voters. Those are the people who ultimately he is serving here. And I understand the credibility issue. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying that if he stays in this race, he's needs to take his argument to the voters and he needs to do more unscripted moments. I've said that. Let Joe be Joe. Get him out there. I totally agree, but this is up to the voters here.  HUNT: No, I mean, look take both of your points, that the voters have been telling us this. Frankly, the media is come in for some criticism for being too credulous and believing what the White House has said. So here, here we are!

“Wait for it …” “It’s coming …” “WAAAIT FORRR ITTT …” This is what I kept thinking for exactly three hours and thirty seconds watching Kevin Costner’s latest movie, "Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1" (yes, it’s that long). But the “IT” never came. I told a Warner Brothers rep that the only way I could think of to describe it at the time was a Western "Lord of the Rings." The size, scope, ambition, and cinematography are off the scale So. What actually is “IT”? Before we get into that, I want to take a second and analyze the anatomy of a Hollywood movie. It’s not rocket science. In fact, screenplays follow a structure that’s been used since the dawn of Western society. The Greeks divided storytelling into five parts. They called it a pentalogy: "penta” meaning “five” and “logia” meaning “discourse." The five-act structure was so effective that it has been copied by some of the greatest storytellers in history. Most of us were introduced to it in high school English class through William Shakespeare. We learned about the five essential stages that make up the anatomy of good stories. It begins with the exposition. We meet the characters. We learn who we’re going to be cheering for, who the antagonist is, and what the conflict is going to be. Next is rising action. Our hero faces adversity as conflict rises. Then the climax: The brave hero uses the tools he’s learned along the way and resolves the conflict. Next is falling action. An outcome is reached. And finally, resolution. The conflict is concluded, and the future of our brave hero is clear. It’s simple. It’s effective. And it has stood the test of time, from the Greeks to Shakespeare. But this is not how modern Hollywood tells stories any more. Hollywood screenwriters have replaced the entire five-part structure with — as the Critical Drinker likes to call it — the message. This is the "IT" that I kept waiting on … for over three hours. How would the message appear this time? Who would be the oppressed? How would that oppressed person, who would probably be a strong-willed female minority who suddenly finds the time to make a very overt pass at her other female co-star, teach all of us schlubs in the theater how inherently evil we all are? It’s inescapable, and Hollywood doesn't even attempt to hide it any more. The human race has spent thousands of years perfecting the art of good storytelling, and the woke hive mind dismantled that work, relatively speaking, in a matter of minutes. But occasionally, a good story slips through the cultural Marxist blockade. The “IT” never materialized in "Horizon." Costner’s movie is, to put it lightly, absolutely epic. I told a Warner Brothers rep that the only way I could think of to describe it at the time was a Western "Lord of the Rings.” The size, scope, ambition, and cinematography are off the scale. And that sometimes is its Achilles' heel. When you watch "Horizon," you have to keep in mind that it’s basically a three-hour setup movie. To put it back in terms of the five-step process, it’s an entire movie centered around the exposition. You’re introduced to multiple different stories that at first seem to have no real connection. But little by little, you begin to see what Costner is weaving. I’d call it a slow burn, spread out over four eventual sequels (yep — that’s how epic this is going to be). To be fair, it’s not altogether slow. The action sequences are intense. But, I mean, come on — it’s a three-hour movie. Peaks and valleys are to be expected, but I think Costner could have shortened the movie up and trimmed a few valleys. I can’t speak enough on the cinematography of this film. The old West explodes before your eyes in a way that I don’t think has ever been done with a Western. You’re not going to watch as a wagon train rolls by and spreads dust all over the air; you’re going to taste the dirt in your mouth and wipe it from your eyes. But even through all of that, the most refreshing part of "Horizon" is the absence of that "IT.” The pioneers and cowboys are not represented as the epitome of white colonial rage and evil. The Native Americans are not cast as ravenous savages. The movie makes it abundantly clear: Life in this fledgling country was brutal for everyone. Hard men and women on all sides fought and died for it. And the action sequences pull zero punches on the brutality. But human beings are not mere caricatures of extreme good and evil. "Horizon" clearly makes an effort to showcase the duality of the human spirit. Cowboys and pioneers killed Indians and, often, each other. Indians killed settlers. They fought and killed other tribes. Costner’s epic story shows all of this in devastating detail, but it also immediately follows that up with the other side of the coin. Whichever end of the rifle, revolver, or knife, no one on either side is a simplistic, Hollywood-style "good guy" or "bad guy." So far, Costner seems committed to a non-woke depiction of the harsh, unforgiving era that was the staging point for the greatest country this planet has ever known. Founding it wasn’t easy for anyone. It was hard for the pioneers. It was hard for the Native Americans. But for all who rose to the challenge, destiny awaited — just beyond the horizon. Editor's note: For Christian Toto's review of "Horizon," see here.

After a disastrous debate performance, the news media, which had been shamelessly gaslighting the public over Joe Biden’s cognitive capacity for years, seemed to turn on the president in unison. Biden stuttered, stumbled, and bumbled his way through a grueling 90 minutes during which he alternated between slurring his confused answers and staring into nowhere with his mouth agape. Examples of the president’s cognitive decline have become so prevalent that journalists were forced to label any embarrassing videos of the geriatric commander in chief as “cheap fakes” in the hopes of shaming the public into ignoring the obvious. Despite this deep investment in running cover for Biden’s senility in the past, anchors on networks like CNN and MSNBC spent their post-debate spin sessions speculating on the possibility that the elderly leader might need to step aside. This discussion was treated as a sudden revelation instead of acknowledging the self-evident fact: The Biden presidency was a scam from the start. Americans seem more interested in speculating on who will get the rose next rather than facing the reality that our political system is fake. The election of 2020 was probably the most contentious presidential result since 1876. The American people were asked to believe that Biden, who hid in his basement for much of the campaign, also won the most votes in the nation’s history. The future president was in better shape back then, but it was still quite clear that he was starting to lose the ability to recall key facts or engage in discussion for extended periods. Even in 2020, several pundits joked that they did not care if Biden collapsed and was replaced after his election if he kept Donald Trump out of the White House. The regime officials went all out to prevent Trump’s re-election. They raised pandemic fears to an apocalyptic level, actively encouraged coordinated race riots across the nation, and radically transformed the voting process forever. Even if one doubts the more salacious claims of voter fraud, Mollie Hemingway’s excellent book “Rigged” lays out how tech CEOs, government actors, Democratic operatives, and the media openly colluded to defeat the incumbent president. An oligarchy installed Biden as president, never expecting him to fulfill the duties of the office. Biden started his term with at least some degree of awareness, but it has been clear for the last few years that he has not been running the show. The American people are completely unaware of who, in fact, is responsible for disastrous inflation, open borders, and endless foreign war, which is exactly how the ruling class likes it. Oligarchies prefer to avoid accountability, and Biden creates the perfect shield. An unspecified set of elites make decisions in the shadows, and then the shambling zombie of a president is wheeled onto the stage to read a teleprompter and take the heat. None of this resembles the system outlined in Article II of the Constitution, but no one seems to care. The corporate press praises how spry Biden looks and dismisses contrary evidence as “fake news.” Conservative commentators play endless videos of Biden wandering the stage after forgetting where he is but still pretend the president is responsible for his administration's decisions. While it’s common for presidents to delegate significant tasks to advisers, it’s clear that under Joe Biden, unelected bureaucrats and power brokers have completely captured the Oval Office. When it comes to public discourse, setting the frame is key. The frame of a discussion delineates its boundaries. While endless speculation and debate may fill that frame, the discussion is ultimately defined by the space the media has created to contain it. If you, as a journalist with a duty to hold the powerful accountable, had instead propped up an obvious fraud, how would you avoid the consequences? People are highly sensitive to status, which in our modern world is conferred by credentials, wealth, and media visibility. Even when something is obvious, if the facts go against the narrative power is advancing, people are scared to notice it. Everyone already knew Biden was a zombie. We learned nothing new last week. With his particularly embarrassing debate performance, however, the media gave people permission to acknowledge what was already clear. This permission acts as a pressure release valve, allowing all the pent-up discourse around the topic to fill the frame the media had constructed.With proper framing, the entire discussion shifted seamlessly from “Biden is just fine; it’s all fake news” to “Biden is feeble; who should replace him?” Speculation about whether and how Biden can be replaced, along with the pros and cons of each alternative candidate, now dominates the discourse. The event has become part process story and part reality television show. No one takes the time to acknowledge the more serious implications of this revelation. The Biden fiasco should make it clear that the elected president does not run the executive branch. This has probably been the case for a very long time and should have been evident as the entire deep state defied Trump. Now it’s too obvious to ignore. An unaccountable oligarchy installed a senile fake president through a soft coup. Instead of grappling with this stunning truth, the media, both left and right, debates whether Gavin Newsom is too white to overtake Kamala Harris and run in Biden’s place. The Biden presidency was always a sham, but Americans seem more interested in speculating on who will get the rose next rather than facing the reality that our political system is fake.

— (@) On "Zero Hour," Glenn Beck shared his thoughts on the state of the world with James Poulos, explaining why people are right to feel upset with the ruling class. Even though people are fed up with the elite ruling class, he says, today’s elites “are so arrogant and have AI at their side that they think that they can topple [the country] and create a Utopia — and I think they're all in.” 2024 promises to be a pivotal year in politics across the world, from the EU parliamentary elections to the U.K. general election and the Trump vs. Biden rematch. People are upset with ruling elites and long for change. Will populist sentiment triumph, or will the establishment prevail? So far, it seems like voters are ready for change. In the EU elections, the populist right won big. In France, voters have abandoned the political center, signaling the desire for a hard right-wing or a hard left-wing government. And in the U.K., center-right Tory PM Rishi Sunak faces embarrassing defeat, indicating the decline of centrist, liberal conservatism. Yet despite Biden’s plunging poll numbers and farmer uprisings across Europe, politicians refuse to change. “Never have I ever seen in a political cycle people saying ow, that hurts, and the politicians say oh good, want some more? You don't do that,” said Beck. “It makes no sense.” Poulos agreed. “For a lot of Americans, it's cognitive dissonance because on the one hand, we've got a government that's totally out of control, that's globalized itself, that is trampling the Constitution using technology as a weapon against its own people. But on the world stage, it seems like we've never been weaker.” To hear more of what Glenn Beck has to say about the future of America, Big Tech, foreign affairs, Elon Musk, and more, watch the full episode of "Zero Hour with James Poulos."

The Magic Is Gone: Abigail Disney and Big Dem Donors Withhold Donations Until Biden Drops Out

Friday Morning Minute

Russian President Vladimir Putin told Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Friday that he was ready to discuss the "nuances" of peace proposals to end the conflict in Ukraine.