Apparently, Ancient Britons Were A Lot More Relaxed About Changing Climates

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 10:39 am

Unlike today, where certain people freak out over everything that happens weather related

Confronted With Severe Climate Change, Ancient Britons Kept Calm and Carried On

Soon after the glaciers melted at the end of the last Ice Age, our planet was vulnerable to abrupt and dramatic shifts in climate, including prolonged cold snaps that lasted for decades. New research suggests early hunter-gatherers living in the British Isles didn’t just manage to survive these harsh conditions—they actually thrived.

Ancient hunter-gatherers living at the Star Carr site some 11,000 years ago in what is now North Yorkshire didn’t skip a beat as temperatures plunged around the globe in the immediate post-glacial era, according to new research published in Nature Ecology & Evolution. This latest research suggests abrupt climate change wasn’t catastrophically or culturally disruptive to this long-standing community, and that early humans were remarkably resilient and adaptable in the face of dramatic climate shifts. (snip)

“It has been argued that abrupt climatic events may have caused a crash in Mesolithic populations in Northern Britain, but our study reveals that at least in the case of the pioneering colonizers at Star Carr, early communities were able to cope with extreme and persistent climate events,” lead author Simon Blockley, a researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London, said in a statement.

Nowadays, if it’s a tad bit warm, a tad bit cold, it rains, it doesn’t rain, heck, a nice seasonal day which is good for taking a loved one out for a nice lunch and a walk in a park, members of the Cult of Climastrology have meltdowns and yammer on about Doom. My farm raised Blue Gourami may not be a happy camper with the water temperature at 72 (need a new heater, they do better around 75-82), but, it’s a fish. Humans can, and have, done just fine in all sorts of different climates. One might get the impression that Warmists have ulterior motives in pushing Future Doom.

Read: Apparently, Ancient Britons Were A Lot More Relaxed About Changing Climates »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Apparently, Ancient Britons Were A Lot More Relaxed About Changing Climates | Trackback URL

Surprise: Democrats Introduce Bill Requiring Background Checks For All Ammo Purchases

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 7:51 am

No matter how they position this as being anti-criminal, all it does is cause problems for the law abiding citizens who purchase ammunition

(Daily Caller) In the wake of the “March For Our Lives” rally Saturday, and with no legislative appetite for more gun control laws, Democrats in both the House and Senate have introduced a bill requiring background checks for purchasing bullets.

“You do not have the right to bear bullets,” said Congresswoman and former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz at a press conference Monday announcing the introduction of a bill that would require instant background checks to purchase ammunition.

The Ammunition Background Check Act was introduced by Wasserman Schultz in the House and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in the Senate. Like its name implies, it would require anyone looking to buy bullets to be subjected to background checks, similar to the one required to purchase a firearm in the first place.

Both are protected by people with firearms, often ones that We The People are barred from owning, with lots of bullets.

Dick? If they can’t buy a gun legally, why are they going to go in and buy ammunition? It’s like buying gas for a car you don’t own.

Wasserman Schultz said, “I really think it’s important to underscore that without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal, and a would-be killer lacks the means to actually kill or maim.”

And you can easily read between the lines of this, the essence being that Democrats want to make it hard for you law abiding citizens to acquire ammunition, making the guns you own hunks of useless metal. If they can’t grab them (not that they aren’t still trying) they’ll attempt to make them useless. All they’ll do is make the permission to purchase ammo harder and harder.

I wonder if they’ll be a spike in kits to manufacture your own ammo? Not that this bill has a snowballs chance in hell of making it out of committee, much less to a floor vote, unless Demcorats manage to regain both the House and Senate. Trump would then not sign it, if it could make it past a GOP filibuster. The gun grabbers will still attempt to dink and dunk on their way to outright banning, at least when they can’t get their big bans through. Oh, and BTW

The full headline is “One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment Repealed”. As Kyle Kushev and others note, this means that 4 out of Americans want to keep the Second Amendment. Heck, they couldn’t even get 40% of Democrats to agree with repeal.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Introduce Bill Requiring Background Checks For All Ammo Purchases »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Orange County Votes To Ignore California Sanctuary Laws While AG Threatens To Take Action

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 7:32 am

The dominoes are starting to fall in California in resistance to California’s sanctuary state laws

(LA Times) The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to move against the state’s “sanctuary” laws, adding a powerful voice to a growing backlash in some conservative parts of California to the state’s pro-immigration policies.

The board voted 3-0 to join a federal lawsuit against California’s sanctuary laws.

SB 54, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed after the Legislature passed it last year, prohibits state and local police agencies from notifying federal officials in many cases when immigrants potentially subject to deportation are about to be released from custody.

Other cities in the county, including Yorba Linda, Buena Park, Huntington Beach and Mission Viejo are also starting to take action to voice their grievances against the state’s sanctuary laws.

This has made many pro-illegal alien criminal supporting California Democrats Very Upset

State Sen. Kevin de León, who wrote SB 54, warned cities going against the state’s sanctuary laws.

“Pushing a racist and anti-immigrant agenda devoid of facts or supporting legal analysis is a pretty sad use of taxpayer resources, especially when it could result in crippling legal costs for cities that rush to join this dead-end effort,” he said in a written statement.

So, a threat to do something against the jurisdictions which are resisting the California law, which is itself resisting federal law. Say, doesn’t federal law take precedence over state law, at least in the case where the Constitution gives Los Federales primacy? The Constitution does give Los Federales primacy when it comes to immigration. The 10th Amendment, States’ Right, doesn’t apply here. That’s also what illegal alien supporters told us vis a vis the Arizona illegal alien law, SB1070.

(Fox News) California Attorney General Xavier Becerra would not rule out taking action of his own against officials who fight the laws, including the sheriff.

“State law is state law. It’s my job to enforce state law and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction, including Orange County, understands what state law requires of the people and the subdivisions of the state of California,” Becerra said at a news conference. When asked if that meant an arrest or lawsuit against the sheriff, Becerra responded, “I think I just answered that.”

Perhaps US Attorney General Jeff Sessions should remind Mr. Becerra what federal law says. Especially if Becerra takes action. Sessions should have Becerra arrested and charged with violating multiple federal statutes on illegal alien “harboring”.

Orange County Undersheriff Don Barnes told Fox News in an interview that Becerra’s comments “were threatening,” but the sheriff’s office was not doing anything that the law did not allow.

“My hope would be that he would read the language of the law that was passed,” he said on “Hannity.” “It very clearly says in there what we can and cannot do.”

Barnes added that the law has put Californians at risk by returning dangerous individuals back into the communities and that by making this information public, the sheriff’s office was trying to help the community be safer.

“They’re very serious crimes and they’re being return back into the community, and quite honestly back into the communities in which they preyed upon and committed their crimes to begin with.”

Illegal alien supporters say they don’t want to keep the bad ones, just the good ones. Yet, they are doing all they can to shelter the bad ones.

Read: Orange County Votes To Ignore California Sanctuary Laws While AG Threatens To Take Action »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Orange County Votes To Ignore California Sanctuary Laws While AG Threatens To Take Action | Trackback URL

Good News: Asthma Inhalers Are Bad For ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

By William Teach March 27, 2018 – 3:30 pm

So, on one hand, the Cult of Climastrology claims Hotcoldwetdry will cause asthma to get worse. On the other…

Your asthma puffer is probably contributing to climate change, but there’s a better alternative

I breathe all the way out. There’s a quiet puff of gas from my inhaler, and I breathe all the way in. I hold my breath for a few seconds and the medicine is where it needs to be: in my lungs.

Many readers with asthma or other lung disease will recognise this ritual. But I suspect few will connect it with climate change. Until recently, neither did I.

Because only nutjobs think that way.

The one most often found in asthma metered dose inhalers, norflurane, is 1,430 times more potent than the best-known warming culprit, carbon dioxide. Another, apaflurane, is 3,220 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Such warming power explains why even the small amounts in an inhaler are significant. Globally, tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent are attributable annually to these inhaler gases. (snip)

A person using a preventer inhaler monthly, plus the odd reliever inhaler, could easily release the annual equivalent of a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide — that’s like burning 100 litres of petrol.

But, just to make sure The Conversation and writer Brett Montgomery do not get sued

If metered dose inhalers are a better choice for you, please don’t panic or quit your medicines. These gases probably won’t be the biggest contributor to your personal carbon footprint. Asthma control is really important, and these medicines work really well. But consider changing if it’s an option for you — when it comes to reducing our footprint, every little bit counts.

As Eric Worrall notes

As a lifelong asthmatic I’m familiar with different inhalers. I can tolerate the powder inhalers, but I know people who can’t – powder inhalers can irritate the airways. It would be unfortunate and harmful if this stretch of a climate warning develops into a movement to ban HFC propellent in asthma inhalers, or makes such inhalers more difficult to obtain or more expensive.

Heh. Climate warning.

Read: Good News: Asthma Inhalers Are Bad For ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 27, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible evil cans of beer full of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on the March For Disco…wait, what?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Paris Climate Agreement Is A Failure, And Will Lead To 25 Holocausts

By William Teach March 27, 2018 – 10:30 am

If only there was something Warmists could do, like giving up their own use of fossil fuels and making their lives carbon neutral. Anyhow, for something so groundbreaking and historic, it sure seems as if it was worthless, and vindicates Trump for (sorta) pulling the U.S. out

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy

Remember Paris? It was not even two years ago that the celebrated climate accords were signed — defining two degrees of global warming as a must-meet target and rallying all the world’s nations to meet it — and the returns are already dispiritingly grim.

This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again. Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty. To keep the planet under two degrees of warming — a level that was, not all that long ago, defined as the threshold of climate catastrophe — all signatory nations have to match or better those commitments. There are 195 signatories, of which only the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines. This puts Donald Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the treaty in a useful perspective; in fact, his spite may ultimately prove perversely productive, since the evacuation of American leadership on climate seems to have mobilized China, eager to claim the mantle and far more consequential to the future of the planet because of its size and relative poverty, to adopt a much more aggressive posture toward climate. Of course those renewed Chinese commitments are, at this point, just rhetorical, too.

Much like with the Kyoto Protocol, which was long on words and celebrations and almost none of the signaturies achieved their goals.

How not good? Another new paper sketches in horrifying detail what this failure would mean, though its findings are smuggled in under cover of rhetorical optimism. In the new issue of Nature Climate Change, a team lead by Drew Shindell tried to quantify the suffering that would be avoided if the planet were kept below 1.5 degrees of warming, rather than two degrees — in other words, how much additional suffering would result from that additional half-degree of warming. Their answer: 150 million more people would die from air pollution alone in a two-degree-warmer world than in a 1.5-degree-warmer one.

Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward — the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II. The paper’s math is speculative, of course, and there will surely be those who take issue with its methodology. But it also looks at deaths solely from air pollution — not from heat waves, drought, agricultural failure, pandemic disease, hurricanes and extreme weather, climate conflict, and more. And the paper reaches that figure, 150 million, only for a world that is two degrees warmer, when everything we are seeing now tells us that two degrees, always an optimistic target, is becoming more and more of a long shot.

These people. Always ramping up the scaremongering, yet, strangely, taking no action in their own lives. Replacing an incandescent lightbulb with a CFL or LED doesn’t count.

Read: Bummer: Paris Climate Agreement Is A Failure, And Will Lead To 25 Holocausts »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

California AG To Sue Trump Admin Over Citizenship Question Or Something

By William Teach March 27, 2018 – 7:10 am

The same People’s Republik Of California Attorney General who does all he can to protect illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes, while also attempting to take away people’s 2nd Amendment Rights, is Very Upset that the question of citizenship will be asked

(Fox News) California on Monday promised to sue the Trump administration over its decision to ask the 2020 census respondents if they are citizens of the United States.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the suit against the administration late Monday on Twitter, saying the measure would be unlawful.

“Filing suit against @realdonaldtrump’s Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census. Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal,” Becerra wrote.

Of course he’s worried that illegal aliens will refuse to answer

In a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece published Monday, Becerra and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla wrote that the inclusion of a citizenship question would be “illegal” and “an extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes.”

“California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census,” they wrote. “An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.)”

Nowhere in the article do they lay out the case that the question is illegal. And, it’s a real shame that they added this brand spanking new question to the census

According to the Commerce Department, “almost every decennial census” between 1820 and 1950 “asked a question on citizenship in some form.” The department also said the citizenship question would be “the same as the one that is asked on the yearly American Community Survey (ACS).” The ACS is sent to a much smaller percentage of American homes than the actual census.

All this is about is an attempt to protect illegal aliens and to get more money for California by inflating actual population (illegals should never count). Regardless, California will waste a lot of money on this frivolous lawsuit.

If only they cared as much about federal law when it comes to illegal aliens. Here’s the Commerce Department press release on the census.

Read: California AG To Sue Trump Admin Over Citizenship Question Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Illegal Immigration | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

It Begins: NY Times Pushes Piece Calling For Repeal Of 2nd Amendment

By William Teach March 27, 2018 – 6:55 am

The NY Times has given retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stephens, a Nixon appointee who turned more and more left as his time went on, a platform to make the argument, and they even provide a cute graphic showing a musket and a scary looking assault rifle!

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement school children and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of school children and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

So, because people have Feelings, and support banning all private ownership of semiautomatic weapons….wait, they were telling us that it is just “assault weapons” they want to ban. Now it’s all semi-autos? Huh…we should repeal the 2nd? Rather a far jump.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

Law abiding citizens aren’t against reasonable restrictions: even the NRA is for them. Or, at least were, until Leftists made it quite clear that their intention was to nickle and dime gun ownership to the point were almost no law abiding civilians could own, possess, and carry a firearm, all while being soft on criminals who wouldn’t follow the laws. And an op-ed like this makes it even more clear that the Left’s idea is to disarm all law abiding citizens, removing their ability to protect themselves from criminals and tyrannical government.

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

Go for it. Give it a shot. I think all Democrats should trot out the repeal of the 2nd as a major campaign theme. Let’s see how far that gets you.

BTW, I bet these leftist bed wetters would get Very Upset if we all openly walked around carrying muskets and pistols from that era.

Read: It Begins: NY Times Pushes Piece Calling For Repeal Of 2nd Amendment »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Democratic Sheriff Candidate Suggests Literally Prying Guns Out Of People’s Dead Hands

By William Teach March 26, 2018 – 3:31 pm

There’s no doubt that R. Daryl Fisher, a candidate for Buncombe County sheriff, and a Democrat, has a lot of experience as a law enforcement officer. But, then there’s this

https://twitter.com/RealRedElephant/status/977667911811719169

Any weapon that is designed for use by the military I think we should ban. You’ve heard people say you have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands. (shrugs) OK.

Video also available at Pacific Pundit.

He’s attempted to counter this with two posts, here and here, the latter being the big one, and has even told people discussing this in the Facebook comments to watch the whole video.

The video he ended up removing from his Facebook page. So brave!

And, in the latter one, we find this typical “oh, shit, I got caught” line

If you want to know what my statements were, listen to all of the videos in their entirety. There is one statement that many up to now have taken offense to. That statement starts out with language similar to, “Don’t believe the scare tactics,” and I say that some gun enthusiast might say, “You will have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.” This is also a movie quote. The crowd laughed and I made a joke. I admit the joke was a mistake and I should not have joked. But I go on to relay that the government cannot take away any guns or any items that were legally sold before any new laws take effect. To do this would be unconstitutional because that would constitute what is called an ex post facto law. Responsible gun owners have nothing to worry about. We have to do something different because what has been done is not working.

Just a joke, people!

Read: Democratic Sheriff Candidate Suggests Literally Prying Guns Out Of People’s Dead Hands »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 26, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on what the March For Life reminds him of.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove