Union Of Hysterical Scientists Uses Hurricane Dorian To Pimp ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 31, 2019 – 4:56 pm

And the Union Of Concerned Scientists want presidential candidates to Know Something

Hurricane Dorian: What the Presidential Candidates—and All of Us—Need to Know

Hurricane Dorian is slowly churning its way toward Florida’s Atlantic coast and is expected to make landfall on Monday or Tuesday as a potentially catastrophic Category 4 storm. Even as our hearts hope for the safety of the people of Florida, we scientists are often asked about the connection between hurricanes and climate change. And next Wednesday, presidential candidates will also be on the hook to answer some hard questions about climate change—and how we must respond as a nation.

So for all the presidential candidates—and for everybody in America who cares about our future climate—this post lays out what we know about those connections and explains how Dorian fits into the picture.

So, they’re making this political.

Does climate change affect hurricanes?

YES. Both simple physics and studies of recent hurricanes indicate that our warming climate amplifies the strength of hurricanes in three primary ways:

1. Warmer water provides more fuel for hurricanes (except, the Atlantic basin is actually slightly below average)
2. Rising seas lead to higher, more extensive storm surge (once again, sea rise is below where it should be for a Holocene warm period)
3. Warmer air holds more moisture for rainfall

But, see, that last one is where it breaks down. Even if we believe all the political based science on hurricanes they’re peddling, it doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. Just that we are in a low level Holocene warm period.

As the climate continues to warm, the strength of tropical cyclones (including hurricanes in the North Atlantic) is projected to rise. The projected increase in intense hurricanes is substantial—a doubling or more in the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the century—with the western North Atlantic experiencing the largest increase.

When scientists put the pieces together, they project that in general, hurricanes will become more intense in a warming world, with higher wind speeds and greater levels of precipitation, much like we’ve seen recently with Hurricanes Harvey, Michael, and Florence.

We also know, though, that the destructive potential of hurricanes involves not just the physics of hurricanes and climate change, but also what lies in their paths. Growing population density along our coasts translates to more people, more homes, and more value in the path of any given hurricane.

They’ve been pimping this position since the early 2000’s. It’s always doom saying. While landfalling hurricanes have refused to cooperate

Don’t expect climate cultists to give up, though. Even when the science is against them, they always have their “but, doom in the future!” talking points.

Read: Union Of Hysterical Scientists Uses Hurricane Dorian To Pimp ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 31, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike which is better than Evil fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on the UN urging action on “hate propoganda” against Muslims after Muslims murder 250.

Seriously, though, I get a good laugh, and a slight eye roll, when people who aren’t professional models pose for photos like the above.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Say, Why Doesn’t Support For Gun Grabbing Laws Translate To Gun Grabbing

By William Teach August 31, 2019 – 10:30 am

OK, perhaps the headlines is not quite fair in terms of where this Washington Post article goes, but, gun grabbing is always relevant

Why doesn’t support for gun-control laws translate to gun-control laws?

Polls routinely show that a majority of Americans support gun-control legislation, such as background checks, gun licensing, assault-weapons bans and red-flag laws. So why hasn’t public opinion filtered up to Washington, which hasn’t passed a major gun-control law in more than 20 years?

On Thursday, Quinnipiac University released a poll that shows that voters strongly support stricter gun laws, and support for some of these proposals is overwhelming. Jim Sciutto of CNN shared the breakdown and asked the question that spurred this post.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1167137519802232842

Amber Phillips attempts to break down why they don’t get passed

For decades, opponents of this kind of legislation have been better organized.

How dare groups like the NRA use their 1st Amendment Rights to protect the 2nd

People who support gun-control laws also aren’t sure how it affects them. Jim Kessler has studied this issue with the center-left think tank Third Way, and they found that people outside of urban areas who aren’t affected daily by gun violence “would be perfectly fine if [a background check law] passed, but it was more a shrug of the shoulders than a shout to the rafters.”

They also notice that the cities with massive gun grabbing have the worst gun violence.

Anyhow, she offers some other reasons, but, she misses the biggest one: gun owners and gun rights supporters do not trust their opponents in the least. We may agree on doing a few things to attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of bad people, but, we know that those laws will go too far, and, even when they don’t initially, they keep attempting to move the goalpost further and further out. Mission creep. So, there is zero trust. Red Flag laws violate multiple Amendments, especially the 4th, and gun grabbers have made no attempt to protect the rights of citizens. We know they are meant for stealth gun grabbing, and they even tell us this.

Their version of universal background checks do not work without a gun database, which makes confiscation easier. Hey, they’re the ones who have been talking about implementing the “Australian solution”, which is a massive blanket banning of privately owned firearms. Reportedly, only 20% of firearms where turned in in Australia. Because they had no database. Huh.

So, we do not trust the gun grabbers. Pass something, then something else, then more, and keep doing things, just like we see in California, NY, NJ, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

Read: Say, Why Doesn’t Support For Gun Grabbing Laws Translate To Gun Grabbing »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

AOC Is Super Thrilled To Release Her (Soviet Style) Green New Deal Art Work

By William Teach August 31, 2019 – 7:28 am

Something is missing from her tweet-storm on the subject

She loves having the monorails, eh?

AOC accused of Soviet-style propaganda with Green New Deal ‘art series’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., received another round of Twitter backlash on Friday after debuting a new effort to push her massive environmental and climate change proposal, the “Green New Deal.”

“Surprise! I am thrilled to announce the launch of our #GreenNewDeal art series with custom Bronx & Queens GND posters,” she tweeted. Her tweet included posters for two of New York City’s boroughs but the ambitious congresswoman plans to place “GND” art around the country.

She plans to release the art during a “Nature Day” event on Saturday, although it’s safe to assume many of her critics won’t attend.

She says, though

And, of course, people are defending this

(City Lab) According to a spokesperson for Ocasio-Cortez, the posters were designed by the New York firm Tandem, the firm behind the congresswoman’s election campaign.

If the posters seem at first glance to have a retro vibe, you’re not wrong, as the congresswoman confirmed in a follow-up tweet. The chunky all-caps type, the emphasis on places of natural beauty, and even the color palettes are intended to evoke posters produced nearly a century ago by a singular federal program in American history: the Federal Art Project, an office of the New Deal-era Works Progress Administration. (The program survived the termination of the WPA for a few years within a new agency, the Federal Works Administration.)There are two things missing in this issue. No one is asking whether the money for the sale of the art will be used for her re-election campaign.

Second, no on in the media is asking why she won’t demand a vote on her #GreenNewDeal. It’s been over six months since it was introduced, yet, there has been no vote on it in the House. She yammers about it a lot. But, even though it is just a resolution, she won’t demand that vote, and, remember, freaked out when the Senate voted on it. It almost seems like this is just a mule fritters issue meant to patronize the hardcore, unhinged Democratic Party base, and whip them up to get them to vote (and donate money to her).

Read: AOC Is Super Thrilled To Release Her (Soviet Style) Green New Deal Art Work »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

In The #MeToo Era, Men Are Avoiding Women At Work, Which Is Punishing Women And Misogynistic

By William Teach August 31, 2019 – 7:14 am

So, let’s see. We have a movement especially led by women from Hollywood who protected sexual predators and misogynists for decades, who ramped the #MeToo movement up to 11. They blame every single man, do not care who they harm and even if a man is blameless, and want them all punished. They make accusations against minor things and even things that don’t exist, so, men who are not Hollywood style predators look to protect themselves and are increasingly more careful in their dealings with women, as they do not want to be accused of something that didn’t happen or was utterly meaningless. Ergo, that’s also bad. You cannot win with these people

Men now avoid women at work – another sign we’re being punished for #MeToo

It looks like Mike Pence is quite the trendsetter. The US vice-president famously refuses to have dinner alone with any woman who isn’t his wife – and now working men across corporate America appear to be following his lead.

A new study, due to be published in the journal Organizational Dynamics, has found that, following the #MeToo movement, men are significantly more reluctant to interact with their female colleagues. A few highlights from the research include:

  • 27% of men avoid one-on-one meetings with female co-workers. Yep, that’s right, almost a third of men are terrified to be alone in a room with a woman.
  • 21% of men said they would be reluctant to hire women for a job that would require close interaction (such as business travel).
  • 19% of men would be reluctant to hire an attractive woman.

The data above was collected in early 2019 from workers across a wide range of industries. Researchers had asked the same questions (albeit to different people and with more of a focus on future expectations) in early 2018, just as #MeToo was in full swing, and depressingly, things appear to have got worse. In 2018, for example, 15% of men said they would be more reluctant to hire women for jobs that require close interpersonal interactions with women, compared to 21% in 2019.

It’s actually very sad. But, it’s just like driving on heavy cold medicine: do you want to put yourself in a bad situation? No. So you don’t drive. There are situations you avoid. There have been too many cases where men have been accused of impropriety, all the way up to rape despite the sex being consensual (or never happened), especially on college campuses. That has moved into mainstream corporate America.

It’s not just men who are afraid of women, by the way. Women also appear to be increasingly wary of hiring women. The 2018 survey results found that more than 10% of men and women said they expected to be less willing than before to hire attractive women. (Note: the 2019 results for women are not yet public.) Internalized misogyny really is a bitch.

So, even women are concerned about other women? Huh. Oh, right, that’s misogyny, rather than practical protection.

There’s been a lot of talk about “grey areas” in #MeToo. All this harassment business is very difficult for men, we’re told, because nobody even knows what sexual harassment is any more! Men are afraid to even shake a woman’s hand in case she thinks it’s harassment! Easier to just avoid contact altogether! What’s really interesting about this study, however, is that it thoroughly debunks the argument that men are confused about what constitutes unacceptable behavior. The very first thing researchers did was look at 19 behaviours (emailing sexual jokes to a subordinate, for example) and get people to classify it as harassment or not. Surprise, surprise, both genders basically agreed on what harassment entails.

Oh, we know what constitutes sexual harassment these days. That doesn’t mean we agree with it. Certainly, people can be offensive at work. Have you ever heard a coworker tell a sexual joke at work? Sure you have. Do you freak out and attempt to ruin their lives? If it’s directed at a particular person, maybe you speak to them. Or report them. But, if not, it’s an annoyance. I tune them out or walk away, just like I do when people are griping about the pay plan (yet again). Essentially, men, and some women, are taking the “better safe than sorry” route.

So there you go: most men are perfectly aware of the difference between a friendly hug and a creepy hug. They are perfectly aware of what constitutes harassment and what doesn’t. Which makes you wonder why so many men are afraid to interact with women at work?

Men are not afraid or terrified to be alone with a woman at work, as the article states. Men just don’t want any problems that might come from a misunderstanding. It’s as simple as that. A simple, innocent gesture or expression can be misinterpreted, and a problem starts, escalates and never really ends. Who needs it. Better just to avoid being alone with someone in the first place. Especially when these days it seems all you have to do is make the accusation and automatically the man is guilty. That friendly hug can be misconstrued and suddenly you’re sitting in HR with a nasty accusation, seeing all those years of hard work going down the tubes. So, men avoid situations.

Read: In The #MeToo Era, Men Are Avoiding Women At Work, Which Is Punishing Women And Misogynistic »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: People Will Be Forced To Change Their Lifestyles For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 2:52 pm

Funny how this so often comes down to Government forcing citizens to change their lifestyles, as demanded by people who won’t voluntarily change theirs

Climate change: Big lifestyle changes ‘needed to cut emissions’

People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned.

Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target.

However, he said technology would help.

The conundrum facing the UK – and elsewhere – was how we shift ourselves away from consuming, he added.

In an interview with BBC News, Sir Ian warned that persuasive political leadership was needed to carry the public through the challenge.

And taxes!

Sir Ian said polluting activities should incur more tax. He believes the Treasury should reform taxation policy to reward people with low-carbon lifestyles and nudge heavy consumers into more frugal patterns of behaviour.

And, while he tries to say this is voluntary, government will force change

“We’ve got to reduce demand to a much greater extent than we have in the past, and if we don’t reduce demand we’re not going to reduce emissions.

“Emissions are a symptom of consumption and unless we reduce consumption we’ll not reduce emissions.

“It will very rarely come down to a direct message like ‘sorry, you can’t buy that but you can buy this’. But there will be stronger messages within the (tax) system that make one thing more attractive than the other.”

So, why are climate cultists not changing their behavior?

Read: Surprise: People Will Be Forced To Change Their Lifestyles For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on not all Snowflakes being in college.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

HotCold Take: Most Climate “Deniers” Are Misogynists

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 10:30 am

The Cult of Climastrology has been mostly low key regarding Hurricane Dorian and ‘climate change.’ Not now, though. All the nuts are out in force with their usual talking points of Other People’s carbon footprints causing hurricanes to be stronger, bigger, more rain, etc. No point highlighting the nutters (well, maybe tomorrow or Sunday as it gets closer), but, here’s a good one that came up

Here we go

Climate skeptic Bjørn Lomborg has built his global brand on keeping his cool. “Cool it,” his best-selling book told those worried about the warming planet. For some reason, however, he seems to have difficulty sticking to the blasé tone when it comes to a 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden.

Lomborg has repeatedly mocked and criticized Greta Thunberg, the prominent young activist who has been sailing across the Atlantic to attend the UN’s Youth Climate Summit and other meetings in the U.S. In June, he tweeted out a cartoon that implied Greta was only useful to climate activists because being young made her unassailable—in four years, it joked, she’d be replaced with someone younger still. Earlier in the year, he’d asked why the World Economic Forum was listening to her at all, and approvingly shared a Quillette article which called Thunberg a fanatic and “absolutist” and which argued adults had a duty to correct her childlike naiveté.

And Lomborg’s on the more civil end of Thunberg’s critics. In April, while tweeting that her policies were “unrealistic” and “costly,” he added that, “of course, she should be treated respectfully, just like all participants in the climate debate.” Several of his followers didn’t seem to care for the caveat, attacking Thunberg with comments about her age and mental health in replies.

As Thunberg approached America, she was followed by a tsunami of male rage. On her first day of sailing, a multi-millionaire Brexit activist tweeted that he wished a freak accident would destroy her boat. A conservative Australian columnist called her a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” while the British far-right activist David Vance attacked the “sheer petulance of this arrogant child.”

Funny, because I’ve seen many female Skeptics take Greta to task. But, you know, Narrative!

While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some, the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism—some of the research coming from Thunberg’s own country. Researchers at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology, which recently launched the world’s first academic research center to study climate denialism, have for years been examining a link between climate deniers and the anti-feminist far-right.

In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.”

Or, it could be that we see that this is all a scam. In regards to Greta, this was someone responding to Tom Nelson

The New Republic screed by Martin Gelin also attempts to White Knight for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because, obviously, AOC is a woman and needs to be protected by Liberal Men (though, honestly, I bet AOC doesn’t feel that way). If you enter that political arena, being a woman or child or certain race or etc doesn’t protect you from criticism. Further, when you are denigrating people, as AOC and Greta constantly do, expect that criticism to be harsher.

Read: HotCold Take: Most Climate “Deniers” Are Misogynists »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 7:12 am

There are all sorts of support groups out there. AA helps folks with their drinking problems. You have ones for drug use. Ones for folks who have been in combat. These are real things, as opposed to worrying about minor changes to the climate which have happened many times in the past. And now this nuttiness is starting to reach mainstream outlets

From the article

As the planet continues to deal with the effects of climate change, the American Psychological Association says more people are dealing with eco-anxiety, “a chronic fear of environmental doom.” Two women, Aimee Lewis Reau and Laura Schmidt, have created a ten-step program to help people cope with the psychological fallout associated with climate change. They joined CBSN to discuss the issue and talk about the group they co-founded, The Good Grief Network.

“Climate change is here. It’s happening. It’s impacting our lives. We have to build personal resilience, be empowered, make changes and then steady ourselves for the future,” Schmidt told CBSN.

Schmidt, co-founder and executive director of the Network, explained that as an environmental studies major she was disturbed by the reality of climate change and by the government’s response to it.

“I saw that no government was taking it seriously enough and that caused me a lot of eco-grief and climate anxiety,” she said.  “And so what we did is designed a program that can help other people move from that place of despair and disempowerment to building community. Really feeling the weight of the world, but in a good way, in an empowering way, that allows us to make change once we come together and see we’re not the only ones feeling this deep despair.”

So, it doesn’t really help people move on from feelings of doom, nope, it just attempts to redirect those feelings into being nutty activists who go to climate marches (and leave all sorts of trash). It doesn’t sound very healthy from a mental standpoint. It appears as if this all just reinforces those feelings of doom.

The stressful feelings that parents face surrounding climate change is exactly the type of stress APA associates with eco-anxiety. The research concludes “watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations, may be an additional source of stress.”

You really need to take a few and watch the video at the link. It is hilarious in their crazy.

Schmidt said The Good Grief Network follows a system with a ritual and a step-by-step process to treat the affliction, similar to Alcoholics Anonymous.

AA’s is not nutty. They also do not charge you a minimum of $20 to download their e-manual. Or recommend your “donation” be $100.

Read: Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Support Groups Help Climate Cultists Deal With Their Grief Or Something | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Popeye’s New Chicken Sandwich Would Be Better Under Socialism

By William Teach August 30, 2019 – 6:59 am

I have not had a chance to try the new Popeye’s sandwich yet, even though one of the few in the Raleigh area is just around the corner, about 6 minutes away. I actually prefer going there over Bojangles, which may seem to be heresy here in the South. I like everything more than Bojangles, except for the dirty rice and tea. Can’t beat those. Plus, they do not have breakfast all day. Or at all. Regardless, John Sexton notices something

Perhaps you’ve heard by now that Popeyes’ new chicken sandwich is all the rage and is creating long lines around the country. This week, socialist magazine Jacobin published a piece arguing that as good as the new chicken sandwich is, it would be even better under socialism.

Vice says that Popeyes’ new chef-d’oeuvre “ascends into a new level of gastronomic achievement that is both a culinary and scientific feat.” The Los Angeles Times claims the fast food delicacy now serves as an “economic indicator” of the country’s fiscal health. The New Yorker suggests the sandwich could “save America.”…

Yet in the face of all this excitement stands a brutal reality: the profiteers of the Popeyes chicken sandwich craze are the bosses, while the workers bear the brunt. With orders exploding at locations nationwide, Popeyes’ employees are working harder under more grueling conditions and few benefits while corporate shareholders bask Scrooge McDuck–style in their riches…

One immediate way to curb this racket would be to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour. With a full 20 percent of frontline fast food workers living below the poverty line, and many relying on food stamps and other benefits just to survive, raising the wage floor would deliver desperately needed relief to countless workers. While the company’s CEO Cheryl Bachelder recently defended its low wages on Fox Business by claiming the priority is to “grow top-line sales” and that an increase in employee pay would “raise prices for guests and lower hours for employees,” we know Popeyes won’t simply pass on the profit surge to its workers — the company will simply hoard that new wealth for executives like Bachelder.

This sandwich may have been created under capitalism — but under socialism, who knows where the frontiers of snack creation may lie?

The $20 an hour minimum wage is the updated version of the $15 an hour minimum wage which many progressives have championed. There are several problems with this plan of course, starting with the fact that CEO Bachelder is right about what raising wages to that level would do to prices.

Not quite sure what is grueling about working in the stores. My local one looks pretty darn clean, and it is always a pleasant experience. Under socialism, we don’t get the sandwich, because it would be too expensive, and only the hoi-palloi will be able to afford it. Plus, it wouldn’t have been developed, since why have something that most people can’t afford to purchase as such? And, under the Modern Socialist plans, the number of chickens available to become delicious sandwiches would be drastically reduced under their ‘climate change’ plans.

And, notice that we’re now up to $20 an hour for the minimum wage. As Sexton points out “Suddenly, instead of sharing the chicken sandwich wealth, managers are thinking about who they can lay off.” That might be generous. Managers would be thinking more of being able to find a new job, because the store would be soon closing permanently, since no one would be willing to pay $7 or more for the sandwich, which, let’s be honest, wouldn’t have been developed in the first place. What, exactly, other than misery, has been developed under Socialism?

Read: Hot Take: Popeye’s New Chicken Sandwich Would Be Better Under Socialism »

Posted in Liberal World | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove