Bummer: If We Break 1.5C Hundreds Of Millions Will Die And Earth Will Be Uninhabitable

By William Teach November 1, 2018 – 8:38 am

I’ve often wondered why other Warmists, who say they are just Concerned and want to Do Something, almost never ever stand up and say “dude! You are not helping with this unhinged, over the top doomsaying” (via Watts Up With That?)

Gloves off over climate policy: ACF chief

Kelly O’Shanassy has run out of time to be polite over climate policy.

The Australian Conservation Foundation CEO says recent warnings from scientists and two decades of climate inaction mean the gloves are off.

“If we continue to burn coal and gas for decades to come, we will kill the 1.5 degree target, we will not have a habitable planet and hundreds of millions of people will die,” she told the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

“When people are defending burning coal and gas, then that’s what they’re really talking about – those hundreds of millions of people whose lives will be at risk.”

Woof! Andrew Bolt, another Aussie, notes that not one person said “hey, hold on”

Pardon?

“Hundreds of millions of people will die”? We will “not have a habitable planet”?

But get this: not a single journalist in the room said: “Are you nuts?” Not one asked: “What’s your evidence?”

To me, it’s mad, bad and dangerous that a room of journalists can hear a shiny-eyed speaker proclaim the end of the world — at least for humans — yet react without the slightest scepticism.

Evidence is not necessary, especially when most of the reporters probably agree. It’s pure Groupthink. And O’Shanassy also said

“My warning to those in the house up the hill is that if you ignore climate change you do so at your political peril,” she said.

Political threat or something more severe? Warmists should remember the lesson of the 2012 Queensland elections, where the ruling party which passed lots of Warmist policies into law lost so badly at the ballot box that they didn’t have enough members to be considered a recognized political party.

Eric Worrall at WUWT notes

If the world breaches the 1.5C limit, nobody will die because of the breach. All that will happen is on average Summer might last a few days longer every year, or winters may be slightly milder. Given that cold weather is a far greater killer than warm weather, breaching the 1.5C limit would likely save lives.

But, Warmists are like Flat Earthers: they want everything to always stay the same. Which is not the way the Earth works.

Read: Bummer: If We Break 1.5C Hundreds Of Millions Will Die And Earth Will Be Uninhabitable »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Says Calling Press Enemy Of The People Is Only Way Of Fighting Back

By William Teach November 1, 2018 – 8:21 am

When 90% of the media votes Democrat, and have long abandoned any sort of journalistic integrity, what are you supposed to do?

(Mediaite) In a newly-released portion of Axios’ interview with Donald Trump, the president once again defended his anti-media rhetoric while brushing off the idea that someone will eventually get hurt because of it.

After asking Trump about his idea to roll back birthright citizenship, Jim VandeHei used multiple points of the interview to question Trump over the implications of calling the press the “enemy of the people.” VandeHei noted that Trump has a major platform between his rallies and his status as president, so he said “there’s got to be a part of you that’s like: ‘Dammit, I’m scared that someone is gonna take it too far.’”

“I think I’m doing a service [by attacking the press] when people write stories about me that are so wrong,” Trump responded. “I know what I do good and what I do bad. I really get it, OK? I really get it better than anybody in the whole world.”

Trump continues to bash the media and various critics who were targeted by the recent threats, and judging by his remarks to Axios, he feels no responsibility for how supporters of his may react to his riling them up against the press.

“It’s my only form of fighting back,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t do that.”

What about the responsibility for the Credentialed Media riling up Democratic Party voters with their anti-Trump and anti-Republican language? For nasty language towards white people (imagine had a white person said this about blacks), especially white men. Nasty towards those who work for Trump, and elected Republicans. And the language from elected Democrats and those who want to be elected, along with all their pundits.

It might be a bit strong to say that the press is our enemy, but, are they not? They are against everything we’re against, and they aren’t shy in saying it. Pieces in the straight news section are horribly biased, and often become opinion pieces. And this has been going on for awhile, but is even worse now than say during the Bush 43 years. They make no attempt to hide it.

If the press doesn’t like it, well, then perhaps they should do some introspection and understand that they are simply all bloggers, activists and drama queens (Jim Acosta, April Ryan) masquerading as professional reporters. At least those at the UK Guardian are honest about their extreme bias. Outlets like CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, etc pretend, and get all sorts of butthurt when you say they’re biased and unprofessional.

And, as for the #NeverTrumpers, like unhinged Max Boot, they’ve abandoned every semblance of Conservatism/Libertarianism/Basic Republicanism due to their Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump is doing what we begged Republicans to do: fight back. Defend yourself. Defend your policies. Do it in a sustained manner. Attack those who are attacking you. Hit them back twice as hard. I tell you, it got to a point where I was tired of defending the Bush 43 admin when they wouldn’t defend themselves. If you don’t defend yourself and your policies, why should anyone believe in you?

Politics is a dirty, nasty business covered with a veneer of civility. Trump gets that. Democrats get that. Republicans are finally starting to get it.

Read: Trump Says Calling Press Enemy Of The People Is Only Way Of Fighting Back »

Posted in Donald Trump, Politics | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Wage Growth Is Going Up Fastest In A Decade

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 3:00 pm

I wonder how Democrats will give the credit to Obama. Hey, maybe they’ll say that the Stimulus is finally kicking in

Let’s go to that Washington Post article, which surely gave lots of liberals at the post a case of the sad’s because Trump

U.S. workers are seeing the largest wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.

Wages rose 2.9 percent raise from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.

That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008, when wages rose 3.1 percent.

Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.

For eight years we were told that recovery was coming, it was coming. Yet, it didn’t come till we had a pro-business president in office, someone who knows How Business Works, rather than thinks they know it from lectures by left wing professors and people who never did it.

And let me say to the Never Trumpers, because they have really been annoying the crap out of me lately, you may dislike Trump, but he is mostly doing the things we want a Republican president to do. If it was Jeb!, Christie, Cruz, etc, they’d be cheering. Instead, they find ways to be against the good that Trump is doing, just like Democrats.

Read: Wage Growth Is Going Up Fastest In A Decade »

Posted in Donald Trump, Economy | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailing ship, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on Hillary joking that all blacks look alike.

Double shot of a scary clown under the fold, so check out House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on demonizing white men

All clowns are scary, right?

Read: If All You See… »

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

There’s Only One Solution To Ending Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 10:30 am

Surprisingly, it’s not a tax, as written by Mayer Hillman at the UK Guardian

There are three options in tackling climate change. Only one will work

The world faces a near-impossible decision – one that is already determining the character and quality of the lives of the generations succeeding us.

It is clear from the latest IPCC climate report that the first and only effective course, albeit a deeply unpopular one, would be to stop using any fossil fuels. The second would be to voluntarily minimise their use as much as climate scientists have calculated would deliver some prospect of success. Finally, we can carry on as we are by aiming to meet the growth in demand for activities dependent on fossil fuels, allowing market forces to mitigate the problems that such a course of action generates – and leave it to the next generation to set in train realistic solutions (if that is possible), that the present one has been unable to find.

These are the choices. There are no others. Future generations will judge us on what we choose to do in full knowledge – accessories before the fact – of the devastating consequences of continuing with our energy-profligate lifestyles.

What a legacy we are bequeathing – regions of the world becoming uninhabitable at an accelerating rate, creating potentially millions of ecological refugees; a burgeoning world population, diminishing reserves of finite and other resources, shortages of water and food, calamitous loss of genetic variability, and wars of survival.

Remarkably, public expectations about the future indicate that only minor changes in the carbon-based aspects of our lifestyles are anticipated. It is as if people can continue to believe that they have an inalienable right to travel as far and as frequently as they can afford. Indeed, there is a widespread refusal by politicians to admit to the fact the process of melting ice caps contributing to sea level rises, and permafrost thawing in tundra regions cannot now be stopped, let alone reversed. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the certainty of environmental degradation, social upheaval and economic chaos.

One has to wonder if Mr. Hillman will be taking a fossil fueled trip to the UN IPCC COP24 in Katowice, Poland. I wonder if he went to the pre-COP24 in Krakow, Poland, in October. Will he rail at all the attendees who took long fossil fueled trips to the conferences?

One also has to wonder when all Believers will give up their own use of fossil fuels. They’re so enthused to deny the use of reliable, inexpensive, easily obtained energy to people in 3rd world nations, which could bring them out of poverty, but, they don’t do the same in their own lives.

Read: There’s Only One Solution To Ending Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Energy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

UN IPCC To Redefine What “Climate” Means

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 8:18 am

The Cult of Climastrology has not succeeded in implementing their political agenda in full despite 30 years of spreading awareness and using things like government grants to get scientists to ape the beliefs of the CoC. Now, they are looking to redefine what climate means. A simple explanation is that it is the long term averages of weather. What is the long term? That’s where they are injecting more politics, as Dr. David Whitehouse points out (via Anthony Watts)

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS, IPCC SECRETLY REDEFINES ‘CLIMATE’

The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.

For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.

There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.

Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-existing and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.

However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation. It is one thing to speculate what the future climate might be; but for the IPCC to define climate based on data that doesn’t yet exist and is based on expectations of what might happen in the future is fraught with danger.

But, that definition, which is also not scientifically sound, is exactly what they want in order to manipulate what is perceived as climate. The average person will have zero idea what is happening, and that 50% of the climate data that’s trotted out is a bunch of mule fritters. Using this new definition, Dr. Whitehouse shows that the real trend of a statistically insignificant rise to .6C (you’ll have to hit the link for the data). When the CoC starts using their projections based on their failed computer models, we could potentially be given higher numbers for the trends. What we’ll get is 15 years of real data (that is adjusted for mumble mumble just trust us) and 15 years of non-existent data.

This might work well for fantasy sports, where you’re picking players based on what they did last year and the sites are extrapolating what they might do this year, but, not for an issue for which hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, paid for by the taxpayers, as well as a rising cost of living and loss of private freedom.

Finally, if the science was so sound, they wouldn’t need to do this. The data would speak for itself. Of course, rising temperatures and such still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

Read: UN IPCC To Redefine What “Climate” Means »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Could Trump Bar Illegal Aliens From Birthright Citizenship?

By William Teach October 31, 2018 – 7:56 am

Birthright citizenship seems rather cut and dry, does it not? The purpose of the passage in the 14th Amendment was explicitly to make sure that the former slaves and their children obtain immediate U.S. citizenship post-Civil War. But, it seemed to give anyone born here citizenship. Here’s how CNN is tackling it in what is supposed to be straight news (politics section), not opinion

Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.

Trump’s vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

But don’t call CNN biased. Regardless of their biases, is it legal?

(Daily Caller) In the U.S., birthright citizenship traces back to a clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, passed just after the Civil War. The amendment’s citizenship clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The clause itself is based on the legal concept of jus soli, or citizenship by “right of soil,” which contrasts with jus sanguinis, or citizenship by familial descent. It has been widely taken to apply to anyone born within U.S. territorial jurisdiction regardless of the immigration status of their parents, with the notable exception of foreign diplomats.

In its 1898 ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court held that the children of non-citizens, when born on U.S. territory, are U.S. citizens by birth. However, the parents in question in the Wong Kim Ark case were legal immigrants, meaning the court did not directly address the status of children born to parents in the U.S. illegally.

That unanswered question gives Trump room to argue the citizenship clause has been too widely interpreted, according to Johns Hopkins University professor Martha Jones, an expert on birthright citizenship.

“A narrowly tailored EO [executive order] that rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is an argument that can be made,” Jones wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

It’s an interesting point. You see the part about children of foreign diplomats. They are excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction. It can be argued that those who arrive illegally are not subject, nor are those who overstay their visas.

Most countries in the world do not offer birthright citizenship — only 30 out of the world’s 194 nations automatically grant citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

No European country has birthright citizenship, and the global trend over the past 30 years has been to halt the practice. Notable countries that have ended birthright citizenship in recent decades include the U.K. in 1983, Australia in 1986, India in 1987 and Ireland in 2004.

It may seem like low hanging fruit at this time, but, ending it would stop a big incentive for illegals to come and have children, as we’ve seen them use their kids as shields, saying “the kids are citizens, so, I should not be deported and should be granted citizenship, too.” That said, a growing number of illegals are ones who show up at the border with the intention of being detained by federal authorities, at which point they expect to be released so they can disappear. Since we are taking custody of them at the border, even at places that are not designated as official crossings, it could be argued that they are now under U.S. jurisdiction.

So, anyone showing up needs to be turned back. No entry. Period. If Democrats cared about the illegals who are already here, especially the so-called Dreamers, they should support tough immigration controls like this. Make it really hard for illegals to come, turn those caught back, deport those caught in the U.S. immediately, and so forth. If they did, they could most likely find support for a one time earned amnesty for those already here.

The order would also apply to tourist birthing, where people come to the U.S. specifically to have their baby, giving it citizenship. Would an order be Constitutional? We’ll have to see if one is released, and, if so, what is it’s basis and legal reasoning. Then all the lawsuits.

Read: Could Trump Bar Illegal Aliens From Birthright Citizenship? »

Posted in Constitution, Illegal Immigration | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Small Business Owner In NJ Is Super Excited To Force Everyone Else To Pay $15 An Hour Like Him

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 2:46 pm

They just keep trotting out this meme

I’m a small business owner, here’s why a $15 minimum wage works for us

Earlier this month, Gov. Phil Murphy presented a comprehensive vision to grow and restore confidence in New Jersey’s economy. Central to the governor’s plan is raising wages for Garden State workers — a noble idea.

As the founder and owner of a small business here in New Jersey, I not only understand the importance of paying workers a living wage, but I put that value into practice every single pay period.

At my company, Love2brew, we pay all of our employees at least $15 an hour – and it works.

I founded Love2brew in 2011 to share the joy of home-brewed beer and winemaking with enthusiasts across the country. My team entered the home-brew industry with an understanding that a high level of service and customer support would set us apart from our competition. As most small-business owners know, the quality of services offered creates loyalty to the products you sell.

And more expensive than most.

Since our founding, we learned that the best retention and performance came from team members who were earning at least $15 an hour. We saw this in their enthusiasm, focus and overall willingness to go the extra mile for every customer we serve. With that lesson learned, all Love2brew employees now make at least $15 an hour. We see this as a critical component to meeting and often exceeding our customers’ expectations of excellent service. Simply put, paying a living wage assures our team a level of personal and economic stability that translates into a passion for our purpose.

That’s quite a bit of money!

Raising our starting pay to over $15 an hour has supported our continued acceleration to a position of national leadership in our niche home-brew market. We did this all without having to raise prices on any of our 1,500-plus items. And make no mistake, Love2brew is still very much a small business with only three employees, but that hasn’t deterred us from paying everyone on our team at least $15 an hour. Supporting a $15 minimum wage isn’t only for large firms.

And the people probably deserve that money. I’d challenge owner Ron Rivers to purchase a fast food franchise or something where the skills needed are low, and see if he changes his tune. Because I’d bet his current employees are high skill. Someone making the products and the other things necessary to run Love2brew aren’t simply flipping/mircrowaving burgers and asking if you want to upsize that.

Of course, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is good for working families, too.

You can read the rest, but, what he wants is to force this by government. And what happens next? His skilled, valuable employees will realize that they deserve more than minimum wage. That they are better than someone dropping fries in oil. And will want more money. To do this, he’ll have to raise his prices. And customers might say “never mind, I can get this elsewhere.” Real world economics are a bitch.

Regardless, it’s his choice to pay $15 to start. Other professional companies do the same. Because of value.

Read: Small Business Owner In NJ Is Super Excited To Force Everyone Else To Pay $15 An Hour Like Him »

Posted in Economy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is the notion that we’ll all soon starve from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on really, really weird gift.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is The Driver Of The Migrant Caravan Mob Or Something

By William Teach October 30, 2018 – 10:35 am

It’s like the UK Guardian spun a wheel of things to link to Hotcoldwetdry

The unseen driver behind the migrant caravan: climate change

Thousands of Central American migrants trudging through Mexico towards the US have regularly been described as either fleeing gang violence or extreme poverty.

But another crucial driving factor behind the migrant caravan has been harder to grasp: climate change.

Most members of the migrant caravans come from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador – three countries devastated by violence, organised crime and systemic corruption, the roots of which can be traced back to the region’s cold war conflicts.

Experts say that alongside those factors, climate change in the region is exacerbating – and sometimes causing – a miasma of other problems including crop failures and poverty.

And they warn that in the coming decades, it is likely to push millions more people north towards the US.

“The focus on violence is eclipsing the big picture – which is that people are saying they are moving because of some version of food insecurity,” said Robert Albro, a researcher at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

“The main reason people are moving is because they don’t have anything to eat. This has a strong link to climate change – we are seeing tremendous climate instability that is radically changing food security in the region.”

Well, that’s a bummer, because ‘climate change’ is not covered by U.S. asylum laws. Of course, this entire premise is a bunch of mule fritters, but, that’s never stopped the Cult of Climastrology before.

Migrants don’t often specifically mention “climate change” as a motivating factor for leaving because the concept is so abstract and long-term, Albro said. But people in the region who depend on small farms are painfully aware of changes to weather patterns that can ruin crops and decimate incomes.

So, they don’t mention it? Weird. Fortunately, Warmist elites are there to tell the peons what to think.

Anyway, we can solve this with a tax.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Driver Of The Migrant Caravan Mob Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove