If All You See…

By William Teach May 8, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution making the sky look grey, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post noting the application of the law depends on your political views.

Read: If All You See… »

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

UN: “Climate Change (scam) is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth” Or Something

By William Teach May 8, 2018 – 10:44 am

Keep beating that dead horse, people who have outsized carbon footprints from living the good life and taking long fossil fueled trips to climate change conferences

(Breitbart) The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat released its first ever annual report this week, in which it held up its “Gender Action Plan” as a key to increasing the participation of women in responding to global warming.

“Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth,” said UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa at the roll-out of the report.

“This annual report shows how UN Climate Change is doing everything it can to support, encourage and build on the global response to climate change,” Espinosa said, adding that “UN Climate Change’s mandate is to lead and support the global community in this international response, with the Paris Agreement and the Convention being the long-term vehicles for united global climate action.”

In his foreword to the report, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, expressed a similar conviction that global warming poses a singular threat to the world in the third millennium.

“Climate change is the defining challenge of our time,” Guterres warned, “yet it is still accelerating faster than our efforts to address it. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are higher than they have been for 800,000 years, and they are increasing. So, too, are the catastrophic effects of our warming planet – extreme storms, droughts, fires, floods, melting ice and rising sea levels.”

So, basically, no matter what happens, they blame it on Hotcoldwetdry. It’s a cult. And, they’ll link it to everything, like women’s rights. Perhaps they should worry more about how women are treated in 3rd world shitholes and Islamic nations before worrying about …. oh, wait, right, the UN Climastrologers want women to be subservient to the Government. My bad.

Read: UN: “Climate Change (scam) is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth” Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, UN | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Kamala Harris Backs Striking Public Sector Workers Over Graduating Kids, People In Need Of Medical Service

By William Teach May 8, 2018 – 7:57 am

Overall, though, this is less about Kamala, who is considered a leading contender to run for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2020, and more about why public sector unions should be abolished

Sen. Kamala Harris backs out of commencement speech at UC Berkeley

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is heeding a boycott call by striking University of California employees and announced Monday that she will not be commencement speaker at UC Berkeley ceremonies.

Harris said she “regretfully” won’t attend Saturday’s spring commencement due to the labor dispute and the call for a university-wide speaker boycott. Instead, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ will deliver the keynote address.

Harris says she wishes the estimated 5,800 students “success for the future.

She had made a commitment to be the speaker, and she reneged on it. For shame. Here’s the really important part

Thousands of UC custodians, security guards, gardeners and other service workers began a three-day walkout on Monday to address gender pay inequalities and demand higher wages.

The Associated Press reported that officials at UC Davis Medical Center were forced to reschedule more than 100 cancer exams and 150 radiology exams.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 called for the strike, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. The union includes 25,000 service workers.

The report said medical workers sympathetic to the strikers are set to join walkouts set for the next few days. Essential patient care will be provided, the report said. Hundreds of surgeries, however, were rescheduled.

Got that? These workers who are demanding a 20% pay hike on the public dime are already paid at or above market rate on the public dime have caused lots of problems for people who need cancer exams and surgeries. These are the people that Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party are backing. Just remember the unhinged talk aimed at Trump and Republicans about PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE (non-essential) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE CLOSED. WE’RE DOOMED!!!!! during the brief shutdowns.

Public sector unions need to go. These are government employees. They live off the backs of the working American taxpayers. It would be one thing if the unions simply existed to protect employees from terrible bosses (don’t the Dems tell us that Government is awesome?), but when people whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayers decide to walk off the job and strike, causing problems for the taxpayers in a manner where the government is essentially extorting the government, there’s a problem.

Read: Kamala Harris Backs Striking Public Sector Workers Over Graduating Kids, People In Need Of Medical Service »

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Kamala Harris Backs Striking Public Sector Workers Over Graduating Kids, People In Need Of Medical Service | Trackback URL

Everyone’s Saying Trump Will Pull Out Of Iran Deal, So, He’s Most Likely Staying In

By William Teach May 8, 2018 – 7:41 am

Look, as stated many, many times, the Iran deal is a bad deal. America really gets little out of it. It is a one sided deal, brokered by people who do not understand how to conduct a win-win negotiation. So, what will happen? Here’s the Washington Post front page headline and sub-head blurb

Trump expected to impede Iran nuclear deal
President Trump is expected to announce that he will not continue to waive sanctions against Iran, according to current and former U.S. and foreign officials. Iran has threatened to reactivate its nuclear program if the United States reneges on any of its obligations under the 2015 pact.

The LA Times takes a middle ground

Allies and adversaries alike worry as Trump sets stage for reveal on Iran deal

President Trump on Tuesday could make good on his longstanding threat to tear up the Iran nuclear accord — or he could heap fresh disdain on the landmark disarmament pact while charting a course that would keep key elements in place, at least for now.

CNN is also middle ground

World holds breath for Trump’s Iran deal decision

President Donald Trump on Tuesday can land his most devastating blow yet on the legacy of Barack Obama, but a move to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal could also spark a dangerous global crisis.

ABC News and the UK Guardian

And, of course, the paper of record, NY Times

Unswayed by Allies, Trump Is Expected to Leave Iran Deal, Diplomats Say

President Trump is expected to announce on Tuesday that he is withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, European diplomats said after concluding that they had failed to convince him that reneging on America’s commitment to the pact could cast the West into new confrontation with Tehran.

Many others are claiming he’ll pull the U.S., and, since Trump always likes to do the unexpected, I expect him to stay in the deal at this time, while demanding full compliance to the letter of the agreement in full, while slapping restrictions and sanctions on Iran as much as he can. At this point, what difference does it make? Iran either works on making nuclear weapons now or nuclear weapons in the late 2020’s. And in the 2020’s is on Barack Obama and John Kerry. Plus, if Trump pulls out, none of the others will pull out, so, it won’t really harm Iran and all the money they now have flowing in.

Oh, hey, what’s this from the NY Times

Here’s How the Nuclear Deal Slowed Iran Down

That’s right, it slowed their nuclear program down. It did not stop it, despite all the happy “let’s make Obama look awesome” talk from news outlets.

The same outlets are also prognosticating doom if Trump pulls the U.S. out. They say that oil prices will spike, that there will be economic doom. In other words, everything will be fine.

Senator Marco Rubio: President Trump should nix the Iran nuclear deal

Rubio does a very good job of laying out how bad this deal is. The question here is, would it make much of a difference if the U.S. pulled out after these few years it has been in operation, when European nations and others will refuse to reinstate sanctions and just continue to do business with Iran? Remember, many of those same nations did business with Iraq under Saddam despite all the U.N. sanctions.

We’ll wait and see what Trump does.

More: For reals?

Read: Everyone’s Saying Trump Will Pull Out Of Iran Deal, So, He’s Most Likely Staying In »

Posted in Current Affairs, Donald Trump, Iran | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ (scam) Believers Demand People No Longer Be Allowed To Have Single Family Homes

By William Teach May 7, 2018 – 4:16 pm

Perhaps we can start with Warmists like Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and all the rest

Green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning.

How can cities that have green building codes have zoning bylaws that protect low-density single family housing?

These days it seems that everyone is fighting over zoning. Housing costs in many cities are unaffordable but the great proportion of the cities are locked into single-family zoning and building anything but a detached house seems almost impossible. Right now we see these battles in Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, but they are happening just about in every successful city.

And the hilarious thing about it all is that these are also cities that have green building standards. San Francisco has a green building codedesigned to reduce energy use, Seattle’s green standard “saves resources and promotes renewable, clean energy”, Toronto’s standard’s intent is to “reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The great hypocrisy is that the single biggest factor in the carbon footprint of our cities isn’t the amount of insulation in our walls, it’s the zoning. (snip)

We have been saying it for years: denser urban living is the key to reducing our carbon footprint. Some, like David Owen, call for really high density; I have called for the Goldilocks Density; the fashionable phrase now is the missing middle; both describe density high enough to support local businesses so that one can mostly get around by walking, but buildings that are low enough that they can be efficiently built out of low carbon materials like wood.

Interesting. Forcing Everyone Else into tight urban areas. A lot easier to control them and keep an eye on them, eh?

We have been talking about the relationship of density and carbon for years, and we have been talking about green building codes, certifications and bylaws. But green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning. Any civic government that calls itself green while protecting low density single family housing is just being hypocritical.

What they mean is that government needs to pass regulations restricting single family housing. Sounds less like a science or more like authoritative government as pushed by idiots who think the bad parts will never effect themselves.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Believers Demand People No Longer Be Allowed To Have Single Family Homes »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is ground turning to rock from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on Connecticut, the electoral college, and the popular vote.

And, no, I have no idea why someone p-shopped Mr. Bean in the background. Twasn’t me.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Gun Grabber Alyssa Milano Says All Can Own Assault Rifles Under Two Conditions

By William Teach May 7, 2018 – 10:53 am

And I mean good news in a good way, not a snarky way

“This security guy has training and passed a background check.” So, per her words, all you need to do to keep a scary assault weapon, like the oft-cited AR-15 Bushmaster WEAPON OF WAR ZOMG is to pass a background check, and take a training class.

There is no actual hard data on how many obtained firearms without a background, just polls. Many obtain them through a private purchase or transfer, like within the family at times. Others do not need to get a background check for a firearm, because they already had one done, are a concealed carry permit holder, or something similar. Once again, I have zero problem with requiring a background check for all purchases and transfers for each and every time a firearm is purchased.

And, hey, if all it takes is that (I’m probably going further than Alyssa considered) and a quick class on firearm safety in order to get the gun grabbers to STFU and go away and stop yammering about assault rifles, I’m OK with that. I might just purchase an AR-15 style rifle just for the hell of it. She set the terms, let’s hold her to it.

(we know that they would never stop pushing even if they did agree to this, though)

Read: Good News: Gun Grabber Alyssa Milano Says All Can Own Assault Rifles Under Two Conditions »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Building A Home In California? You’ll Be Required To Have Solar Panels

By William Teach May 7, 2018 – 8:06 am

As if home prices weren’t high in California as it is. Trulia rates the state 3rd in median home price behind Hawaii and D.C. (obviously, there are tons of factors that make home prices higher, so it can’t all be blamed on state and local rules and such). And CNBC ranked California 3rd highest for cost of living, behind NY and Hawaii

California to become first U.S. state mandating solar on new homes

For seven years, a handful of homebuilders offered solar as an optional item to buyers willing to pay extra to go green.

Now, California is on the verge of making solar standard on virtually every new home built in the Golden State.

The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020.

If approved as expected, solar installations on new homes will skyrocket.

An interesting question I haven’t found an answer for yet is whether the solar would all go directly to the home, or being linked into the grid, meaning your home would be part of the energy companies property. Anyhow, solar installation would skyrocket not because people want it, but because government demands it. And they’re trying to wipe out the use of natural gas at the same time

In addition to widespread adoption of solar power, the new provisions include a push to increase battery storage and increase reliance on electricity over natural gas. Among the highlights:

  • The new solar mandate would apply to all houses, condos and apartment buildings up to three stories tall that obtain building permits after Jan. 1, 2020.
  • Exceptions or alternatives will be allowed when homes are shaded by trees or buildings or when the home’s roofs are too small to accommodate solar panels.
  • Solar arrays can be smaller because homes won’t have to achieve true net-zero status.
  • Builders installing batteries like the Tesla Powerwall would get “compliance credits,” allowing them to further reduce the size of the solar system.
  • Provisions will encourage more electric use or even all-electric homes to reduce natural gas consumption. State officials say improved technology is making electric water heaters increasingly cost-effective.

The mandate dates back to 2007 when the state energy commission adopted the goal of making homebuilding so efficient “newly constructed buildings can be net zero energy by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings.”

You can see builders finding ways to make sure the buildings are shaded. On the bright side, perhaps this will lead to builders not clear cutting land for developments.

The new energy standards add about $25,000 to $30,000 to the construction costs compared with homes built to the 2006 code, said C.R. Herro, Meritage’s vice president of environmental affairs. Solar accounts for about $14,000 to $16,000 of that cost, with increased insulation and more efficient windows, appliances, lighting and heating accounting for another $10,000 to $15,000.

But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said.

The problem is, most people do not stay in their homes for 25 years. And that up-front cost is not exactly chump-change. And, then you have repair costs, upkeep costs, and it makes it more expensive for the repair and upkeep costs for the roof itself. And, really, how does this help?

At night when there’s no solar power, people come home, turn on the lights, the TV and possibly the air conditioning and start pulling power from the grid, he said. Some gas-powered generating plants then are fired up to help meet that additional load, boosting carbon emissions.

“That additional (home-generated) solar kilowatt-hour isn’t worth very much because it’s displacing what is already clean energy,” McAllister said. “That net-zero home is not a net-carbon-zero home.”

Yeah, most people are gone during most days. At night, solar can only help so much, if the home has lots of expensive batteries.

Read: Building A Home In California? You’ll Be Required To Have Solar Panels »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Multiple Illinois Counties Declare Themselves Sanctuaries For Law Abiding Gun Owners

By William Teach May 7, 2018 – 7:32 am

The movement is spreading

(Chicago Tribune/AP) Several rural Illinois counties have taken a stand for gun rights by co-opting a word that conservatives associate with a liberal policy to skirt the law: sanctuary.

At least five counties recently passed resolutions declaring themselves sanctuary counties for gun owners — a reference to so-called sanctuary cities such as Chicago that don’t cooperate with aspects of federal immigration enforcement.

The resolutions are meant to put the Democratic-controlled Legislature on notice that if it passes a host of gun bills, including new age restrictions for certain weapons, a bump stock ban and size limit for gun magazines, the counties might bar their employees from enforcing the new laws.

“It’s a buzzword, a word that really gets attention. With all these sanctuary cities, we just decided to turn it around to protect our Second Amendment rights,” said David Campbell, vice chairman of the Effingham County Board. He said at least 20 Illinois counties and local officials in Oregon and Washington have asked for copies of Effingham County’s resolution.

Of course, there’s a big difference between sanctuaries for people who are unlawfully present in the U.S. and protecting lawful gun owners from state government going after the Constitutional rights of the law abiding, especially because those same governments rarely implement measures against the criminals, which is how we get the majority of the 650 homicides in Chicago last year being committed with firearms (but, then, the majority of deaths were blacks, and white Democrats are fine with that, just like they’re fine with the huge percentage of abortions being black babies).

Here’s where this AP article gets funny

Such talk worries Kathleen Willis, a Democratic state representative from suburban Chicago who sponsored some of the gun legislation.

“I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it,'” she said. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

Serendipidously, Willis was also a sponsor of the Illinois Trust Act, which made the state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. She didn’t agree with federal laws, so she decided to sponsor and vote for a law saying Illinois would not enforce federal because she didn’t agree with them. And, again, there’s a hell of a difference between protecting lawful gun owners and protecting illegal aliens.

Read: Multiple Illinois Counties Declare Themselves Sanctuaries For Law Abiding Gun Owners »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Multiple Illinois Counties Declare Themselves Sanctuaries For Law Abiding Gun Owners | Trackback URL

New Warmist Talking Point: Figure Out Who’s To Blame And Sue Them

By William Teach May 6, 2018 – 4:56 pm

By this definition, we should sue the Democratic Party for creating urban slums for Black people, leaving them in poverty, misery, and violence

HOW TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE: FIGURE OUT WHO’S TO BLAME, AND SUE THEM

HOW IT USED to go was, after some extreme weather event, reporters would ask Climate McScientist, PhD whether the flood/drought/hurricane/disease outbreak/wildfire/superstorm happened because of climate change. Dr. McScientist would pat the reporter on the head and say: Well, of course, one can never ascribe any single weather event to a changing global climate. Granted, a horrifying, unprecedented natural disaster is, maybe, the sort of thing one would expect on a planet where humans have been burning hydrocarbon fuels for decades, putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and raising the overall temperature on Earth. Maybe.

How it used to go pre-climastrology science: a weather event or something would happen, and everyone would realize that our planet is wild. And before the science-science, they’d wonder who is the witch which caused the Bad Weather, and attempt to burn them at the stake.

It’s a future of terrifying disasters—and a future where scientists know more about the underpinnings and mechanics of those disasters. But maybe most importantly, it’s a future where you can attribute a cause. It’s a future where you can ascribe fault.

And that means you can sue the people responsible.

Of course, they’re blaming the fossil fuels companies, which provide a product that people want. That Warmists want to be able to travel long distances to ‘climate change’ conferences

A bigger question is whether courts could hold actual carbon emitters accountable for climate change-related damages. New York City, coastal cities in California, and cities in Colorado suing petrochemical companies for sea level rise and other climate change outcomes. It’s a tough case to make. In a climate “tutorial” that was part of the California cities’ lawsuit in March, Chevron’s attorney Ted Boutrous didn’t attempt to deny a single thing about the physics and chemistry of climate change, or even that human activity caused it. He just said it didn’t make sense to blame oil companies. Burning hydrocarbons doesn’t kill people; people burning hydrocarbons kills people.

And, he’s right. Perhaps we should sue all the Warmists who refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

The International Energy Agency says that Earth can solve its climate problems with a $53 trillion. That money has to come from somewhere. Environmentally-minded investment practices might be one approach. So is using the courts to extract some money from the people responsible. “When people can’t get change made through other processes—dealing directly, a political process—the other branch of government is the judicial branch,” Patton says. “That’s where people go to resolve disputes.” And now science is walking in with relevant evidence.

Whoops. Partly let the cat out of the bag, that this is all simply a shakedown to have the cash to implement their Progressive (nice Fascist) policies.

Read: New Warmist Talking Point: Figure Out Who’s To Blame And Sue Them »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on New Warmist Talking Point: Figure Out Who’s To Blame And Sue Them | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove