If All You See…

…is a world made violent by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on ABC being concerned about a backlash in the wake of Manchester.

Read: If All You See… »

Local Meteorologist Wants Skeptics To Put Up Or Shut Up Or Something

There was a time when local Raleigh weatherman for WRAL Greg Fishel simply did the weather, and, he’s damned good at it. If you want to know Raleigh and North Carolina weather, no one is better. When I want to know the local weather, if there’s something big going on, WRAL is the first place to go. Sorry, WNCN and WTVD. But, he’s become an uber-Warmist (who takes long fossil fueled trips to Alaska), and now has a challenge

‘Put up or shut up’: WRAL’s Greg Fishel goes off on climate change deniers

Popular local weatherman Greg Fishel had strong words for climate change deniers on his Facebook page on Sunday.

Fishel, chief meteorologist at WRAL, went off on people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” The post had earned more than 3,500 reactions by Monday afternoon.

“You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change,” Fishel wrote. “All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice.”

First, let’s note that Mr. Fishel (who I’ve met in the past, nice guy) did not use the term “deniers”: that’s on the Raleigh N&O. I’m betting my comment at the screed which uses the terms Warmists, Alarmist, and Cult of Climastrology gets deleted rather quickly.

Regardless, I’ve challenged Greg in the past to put up or shut up, in terms of going carbon neutral in his own life. Giving up his own use of fossil fuels. He can go buy a Nissan Leaf, Tesla, or other straight plug-in vehicle. Get a Chevy Volt and pledge to never put gas in the reserve tank. Not take fossil fueled plane trips.Pay for offsets for his weather broadcasts while reducing the energy used.

Perhaps he’d like to take my yearly challenge, since he is attempting to shift the debate to the “hey, we’re experts, you aren’t, so shut up.” Of course, this means we aren’t supposed to listen to Obama, Gore, Dicaprio, and all the others yapping about the issue.

Read: Local Meteorologist Wants Skeptics To Put Up Or Shut Up Or Something »

Trump Budget Requests $4.5 Billion To Deal With Illegal Immigration

This is the budget that Democrats are having conniptions fits over, because it mostly requests big, big cuts. One thing they do not understand, as most of them have spent seemingly their whole lives in the un-reality of elected politics, is that the budget request is a starting point of a negotiation, much like when someone goes into a car dealer and trots out a massive lowball number while the dealer goes with sticker. There’s a compromise point there. And when it comes to illegal immigration, we get

(Mother Jones) While he’s still waiting for Mexico to agree to pay for his “big, beautiful” border wall, President Donald Trump is asking for $1.6 billion for, as Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney put it, the barrier’s “bricks and mortar.” An unnamed source told CNN that the money requested in the newly released 2018 budget proposal would cover just a few dozen miles of wall.

The proposed wall spending represents a significant portion of the more than $4.5 billion the White House is requesting for immigration enforcement and a border protection package whose wish list ranges from communications equipment and surveillance technology to aircraft and weapons. It also includes $1.5 billion to expand its efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, as well as $300 million to recruit, hire, and train 1,500 new immigration agents, a step toward Trump’s call to add 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection agents. (According to CBP estimates, it would likely take as long as a decade to pull off hiring as many people as Trump wants, and it would have to ease the hiring standards to do so.)

Under Trump’s budget, the Department of Justice would get $7.2 million to hire 70 new prosecutors “to support an increase in immigration law enforcement” and focus on serious crimes committed by immigrants, as well as immigration-related offenses such as reentry after deportation. To help clear the years-long backlog in the immigration courts—there are currently 542,000 pending cases before 301 judges—the DOJ would also receive $75 million to hire 75 new immigration judges and support staff.

This is the type of information that sends supporters of people who are unlawfully present into apoplexy, bur, for the rest of us who are tired of illegal aliens

The budget, as we see at Politico, also goes after sanctuary cities, by requesting that Homeland Security funding is denied to those cities that ignore detainers.

One thing he’s missing in the budget request is on illegal overstayes

(Washington Times) The nexus of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday.

Known as visa overstays, the visitors present a different challenge than the border crossers, and one that Homeland Security officials are still trying to figure out how to handle.

Quite a few of these were overstays by students, and most were long term overstays. It might be worthwhile for immigration enforcement to initiate a crackdown, putting those illegals on notice.

Read: Trump Budget Requests $4.5 Billion To Deal With Illegal Immigration »

In Wake Of Manchester Bombing, NY Times Calls For Respecting Hardcore Islamists

This is a dance we’ve seen time and time again. A person who practices extremist Islam, referred to as an Islamist, attacks in the name of their religion, and the Leftist apologists immediately go into a mode of “let’s not be mean to Muslims or talk about the root causes and we all need to be respectful and diverse”, even though the Islamists offer no respect and are happy to kill those who aren’t Islamists, including other Muslims. The NY Times Editorial Board gives it a whirl

When Terrorists Target Children

Every victim of terrorism is innocent, and every one is to be mourned. But the bombing in Manchester, England, on Monday night that killed teenage or even younger fans of the pop star Ariana Grande, many accompanied by their parents and some clutching the pink balloons Ms. Grande had sent sweetly raining down at the end of her concert, is particularly wrenching. (snip)

The Islamic State wants nothing more than to watch Western democracies embrace its mad version of a holy war pitting Muslims against Christians, the newly arrived against others. This has been the goal of other attacks in Europe. With cold calculation, extremists have ripped apart the lives of people simply out enjoying themselves — whether at a concert or sitting around cafe tables in Paris in November 2015, or gathering for Bastille Day fireworks in Nice last year, or shopping at a Christmas market in Berlin in December.

Everything is a lead-up to

Maximum vigilance is needed, and Britain raised its threat level from severe to critical. Public spaces must be made as safe as possible, even as people recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses. In Britain, as in the rest of Europe and in the United States, it is critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized. As Richard Barrett, former director of global counterterrorism operations at MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, said, “engaging the community and letting the community inform us” is one way “to understand why people do this” and to prevent future attacks.

Understanding is critical. The quickest way for open societies to lose the freedoms they enjoy and the Islamic State seeks to destroy would be to whip up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds. But there will be those who try. The Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson tweeted on Tuesday: “We need a State of Emergency as France has. We need internment of thousands of terror suspects now to protect our children.” Then there was the unbelievably vile tweet by Katie Hopkins, a British commentator: “We need a final solution.” She later changed “final” to “true” in a new tweet after her original was widely condemned.

Got that? It’s more important to be diverse and nice and stuff to people who are good with hanging gays, repressing women, stoning adulterers, and so much more, and who essentially use our own laws, social mores, and founding documents against Western nations to slowly take over. Seriously, that tweet caused more concern amongst the Progressive forces (it’s being investigated by the police, if you can believe it) than the Islamist suicide attack that killed 22 and injured scores, most of them children.

(Gatestone Institute) The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

That’s part of a 2016 poll. There’s a large and ever-growing population of Muslims which is being radicalized. Should we tolerate that? Is it OK with the NYTEB that gays are stigmatized by Islamists? Should we prioritize being nice to Islamists over protecting gays and women?

Interestingly, the NY Times, including the Editorial Board and all the opinion writers, had no problem fomenting division with the rise of #BlackLivesMatter. They had no problem whipping up division bey demonizing white people, police, those from “flyover country”, and anyone who was a Trump supporter. They still do this. Yet, at the same time, they seek to protect the hardcore Islamists.

Look at the text in red: engagement and such doesn’t work when only 34% would bother informing authorities if someone becomes a jihadi. Perhaps it’s time to stigmatize a bit, so that Muslims can put their foot down on the ever growing extremists issue within their religion. Or, let’s be honest, they can go back to where they came from and practice their 8th Century religion there.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In Wake Of Manchester Bombing, NY Times Calls For Respecting Hardcore Islamists »

BBC Leftist: Brits Are Going To Have To Get Use To Islamic Terror Attacks

Hey, remember when they said that Brits had to get used to attacks from the I.R.A?

(Daily Caller)  According to BBC Anchor Katty Kay, Europeans have to get used to terror attacks like the Manchester bombing.

Kay told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that Europeans have no choice but to get used to terrorists murdering their families because “we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out.”

“Europe is getting used to attacks like this, Mika. They have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out,” Kay said.

“As ISIS gets squeezed in Syria and Iraq, we’re going to see more of these kinds of attacks taking place in Europe and Europe is starting to get used to that.”

Look, you may never be able to stamp out radical Islam and the Islamists who practice it and practice it, but you can certainly reduce the danger and chance of attacks by stop letting the Islamists in to the U.K, and stamping out the Islamists who are already in the U.K.

Stop coddling this regressive, violent, gay and women hating, murderous, etc religious ideology. We don’t have to tolerate it. Sure, more are killed by drunk drivers. Do we tolerate that, or put our foot down? As one commenter noted

If only Churchill had had her wisdom, a great many German lives would have been spared. All of England would have been overrun, but that’s her point isn’t it? Peace is always one quick surrender away.

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller notes the difference between Obama commenting on the Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack and Trump on the Manchester attack.

Read: BBC Leftist: Brits Are Going To Have To Get Use To Islamic Terror Attacks »

If All You See…

…is an evil carbon polluting dog, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Tuesday morning links.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: You Too Can Have Four Hummers And Save The Planet From A Fever

Isn’t it interesting how climahypocrites, especially the biggest ones, always have some sort of excuse?

Schwarzenegger says you can have four Hummers and still save planet

Arnold Schwarzenegger has four Hummers and likes nothing better than getting up at 5am to ride his Harley Davidson to the beach for breakfast.

Yet “The Terminator” star insists that should not stop him being an environmental evangelist.

“Saving the planet is also about technology,” the former California governor told AFP, putting his foot on a chair and wagging a skull-ringed finger to make his point.

Three of his Hummers run on hydrogen, vegetable oil and bio-diesel and he’s hoping to put an electric engine into the fourth.

“You know one day soon we are going to have hydrogen-fuelled planes. We can get rid of this dirty diesel tomorrow.

“I hate it when environmentalism comes down to ‘you can’t do this and you can’t do that’. There’s a bad habit of shaming, guilt and finger pointing. ‘Don’t smoke this, don’t take a jacuzzi and don’t take a plane.’ Everything’s bad.”

Yet, Arnold still takes lots of fossil fueled flights and other travel, lives in giants carbon polluting homes, but, hey, this is a new one, claiming that demands that Warmists practice what they preach is “shaming.”

Look, we on the Skeptical side do not expect Warmists to be perfect. I’m certainly an environmentalist, but, I do not claim to be perfect. We do expect them to at least try. Most, especially the big shots in the Cult of Climastrology, really can’t seem to be bothered.

Obama Speaks on Global Warming, Then Spews CO2 With Private Jet, 13-Car Motorcade

Current President Donald Trump may be living it up in Saudi Arabia, but former President Barack Obama certainly isn’t slacking off on the sweet life.

Obama and his wife Michelle are in Italy this week on vacation, after the former President spoke to the Institute for International Political Studies in Milan on the importance of addressing climate change, to preserve the world’s food supply and protect its underprivileged.

Apparently, he’s decided to demonstrate humanity’s contribution to global warming by making his own carbon footprint as big as possible.

On Friday, the Obama’s jetted into Tuscany on a private – not a commercial – plane, escorted into a small Florentine airport by six additional military jets, according to Italian state television. Footage of the landing has been broadcasting across Italy all weekend.

Is it shaming to mention this?

Read: Good News: You Too Can Have Four Hummers And Save The Planet From A Fever »

Single Payer For California Alone Could Cost $400 Billion A Year, Over Double The California Budget

The Nation idiotically asks “Why Won’t More American Corporations Support Single-Payer Health Care?” Perhaps they should have read the LA Times

Single-payer healthcare could cost $400 billion to implement in California

A single-payer healthcare system in California — a galvanizing cause among the state’s progressive flank — would cost $400 billion annually, according to a legislative analysis released on Monday.

The analysis, released in advance of the proposal’s hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question over the plan to dramatically overhaul California’s healthcare coverage.

$200 billion would need to be reallocated from other funds, while, get this, the other $200 billion would need to be raised with new taxes. But, um, there’s a little problem with the numbers that are being thrown around in all the stories, since the California budget is $180 billion annually. So, it’s not just reallocation, it’s the need for, realistically, way more than the supposed raising of $200 billion.

The write-up also notes the universal healthcare proposal would likely reduce spending by employers and employees statewide, which currently ranges between $100 billion and $150 billion annually. Therefore, the total new spending under the bill would be between $50 billion and $100 billion each year.

That’s rather rosy. If single payer is offered, companies would drop their health offerings, especially when one of the recommendations is to increase the tax on payroll. And you can bet other taxes would be aimed at employers.

(Seattle Times) Employers, business groups and health plans warned that the tax increases would crush businesses and make it harder for them to expand their workforce in California.

And, unsurprisingly,

SB562 would guarantee health coverage with no out-of-pocket costs for all California residents, including people living in the country illegally. The state would contract with hospitals, doctors and other health care providers and pay the bills for all residents similar to the way the federal government covers seniors through Medicare.

And we all know how efficient government is.

Two-thirds of the Assembly and Senate must approve the tax increases required to fund it. If it were to clear the Legislature and be signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who has expressed skepticism, it would need cooperation from President Donald Trump’s administration to waive rules about federal Medicare and Medicaid dollars.

Hey, Trump should waive them. Then we can watch the implosion.

Read: Single Payer For California Alone Could Cost $400 Billion A Year, Over Double The California Budget »

At Least 22 Dead In Manchester Terrorist Bombing

Unsurprisingly, as I keep flipping back and forth, neither MSNBC nor CNN are covering this. It’s Russia Russia Russia

(NY Times) An explosion that appeared to be a suicide bombing killed at least 22 people on Monday night and wounded 59 others at an Ariana Grande concert filled with adoring adolescent fans, in what the police were treating as a terrorist attack.

Panic and mayhem seized the crowd at the Manchester Arena as the blast reverberated through the building, just as the show was ending and pink balloons were dropping from the rafters in a signature flourish by Ms. Grande, a 23-year-old American pop star on an international tour.

Traumatized concertgoers, including children separated from parents, screamed and fled what appeared to be the deadliest episode of terrorism in Britain since the 2005 London transit bombings.

Speaking to reporters early Tuesday, Manchester’s chief constable, Ian Hopkins, said the police learned of the explosion around 10:33 p.m. Children were among those killed, he added, and the wounded were taken to eight hospitals.

Chief Constable Hopkins said that a man had detonated “an improvised explosive device” and had been killed in the blast. He said the police believed that the man had acted alone, but that they were trying to determine whether he had been part of a wider network. Other officials said the police were investigating reports that the device had used nuts and bolts as shrapnel.

Someone captured the moment of the attack in the venue

and outside

The jihadi (we all know which religion this guy is going to end up a part of, right?) was apparently known to police, and may have reconnoitered the center prior. A big question now is whether he was a true lone wolf (as much as a person who makes up the 1%, which equates to 16 million or more Islamists, can be a lone wolf with so many peers) or part of something wider.

Nope, still nothing on Morning Joe, and Headline News is also yapping about Michael Flynn.

(UK Daily Mail) President Donald Trump began his remarks Tuesday in the historic West Bank town of Bethlehem by calling the suicide bomber who killed 22 people in the British city of Manchester hours earlier a ‘loser’ – and said that will be his preferred term from now on for terrorist killers.

‘We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom,’ the president said, standing alongside Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.

‘So many young, beautiful, innocent people living and enjoying their lives, murdered by evil losers in life.’

‘I won’t call them monsters because,’ he said. “They would like that term. They would think that’s a great name. I will call them from now on ‘losers’ because that’s what they are. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers, just remember that.’

World leaders have offered condolences from around the world. Meanwhile, breaking news is that a man has been arrested

(UK Mirror) Police have arrested a 23-year-old man over the Manchester Arena terror attack that killed 22 and injured 59.

It is understood the arrest was made in the south of the city this morning.

The arrest was made in connection with the bombing at last night’s Ariana Grande concert, the Manchester Evening News reported.

It was a horrific act, certainly perpetrated by despicable people who have perverted their religion to push their repressive ideology. Something we see time and time again.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: At Least 22 Dead In Manchester Terrorist Bombing »

Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: Predictions Can Never Be Falseifiable

Why? Because this is what passes for science these days, at least when it comes to the Warmist version of climatology. Which might be why we get something like this

Climate change predictions can be scary for kids. What can you say?

Predictions for a planet affected by climate change can sound like they’re ripped from a doomsday novel: stronger hurricanes, intense heat waves, rising sea levels and the disappearance of ice in the Arctic.

And scientists have seen some of those changes already taking place, according to NASA.

Climate change — as well as other environmental issues like deforestation and wildlife extinction — have the potential to be scary for children. The implications of climate change can contribute to stress, depression and anxiety for everyone, but especially for kids, according to a study released this year by the American Psychological Association, Climate for Health and EcoAmerica.

Which leads to what they think parents, and especially teachers, who have long hours 5 days a week to indoctrinate should say. So, let’s move on to Mr Hockey Schtick himself as he writes at Foreign Affairs (behind the paywall) (via Climate Depot)

Oren Cass argues that the worrying predictions of mainstream climate science are overblown (“The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing,” March 21). But rather than assessing the legitimate range of views regarding climate change, Cass marshals a series of fallacies in an apparent effort to justify a fossil fuel-friendly agenda of inaction.

The clearest signs of trouble in Cass’ essay are rhetorical. By referring to mainstream climate scientists as “catastrophists,” Cass suggests that he is more interested in scoring political points than in engaging with the science surrounding climate change. It is true that the projected effects of unmitigated warming might objectively be characterized as catastrophic. If anything, however, scientists have been overly conservative in their assessments, tending to understate the actual threat posed by climate change—the very opposite of catastrophism. What’s more, the label creates a straw man: in Cass’ argument, “the catastrophist” is an amalgamation of perspectives set up for the purpose of being knocked down.

So, the more doomsaying the better, which moves to

“Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”

So, if my computer models (me doodling in Microsoft Paint) show that the Earth is going to enter a new Little Ice Age in 2050 so there’s no need to spend trillions of Other People’s money, well, then, we just have to wait, right? Right?

Read: Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: Predictions Can Never Be Falseifiable »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5822 access attempts in the last 7 days.