Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 3:26 pm

Though, let’s be honest, it was predictable that people in Wyoming would not back it

Climate change rule opponents in majority at Wyoming hearing

Opponents of climate-change regulations that face repeal under President Donald Trump’s administration outnumbered supporters at a hearing in Wyoming’s coal country.

Tuesday’s hearing in Gillette was the last of four held from West Virginia to San Francisco. About 40 percent of the nation’s coal comes from large mines near Gillette.

The Casper Star-Tribune reports over 200 people attended the hearing on the proposed regulations from President Barack Obama’s administration. The rules would seek to reduce greenhouse gas produced by coal-fired power plants.

What they were debating specifically is the Clean Power Plan, as the Casper Star-Tribune notes, and the above, which comes from the AP, doesn’t. It may play well in places like San Francisco (which uses vast amounts of a different fossil fuel), but not in the Heartland, where even Democrats stand against it (at least in voice)

Democrat Mary Throne, also vying to replace Gov. Matt Mead later this year, said the Clean Power Plan was a faulty approach to addressing emissions.

“Coal is not the enemy,” she said, calling for a replacement.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I’m no big fan of coal, because it is dirty, and I’m not referring to “carbon pollution.” But, until we can replace it with affordable, reliable energy sources it needs to stick around.

Read: Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from Other People not riding bikes to work, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a woman arrested for making lewd comments. To the Easter Bunny.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 10:38 am

I’ve actually tried to avoid the nutty Warmist notion of linking their Cult to special events this week, as you just knew they would do this with Easter, as they do year after year. Alas, while cruising the news on ‘climate change’, I ran across a hot take of hot takes

Christ’s ‘crown of thorns’ tree may help in climate change fight -researchers

As the sun beats down on the barren slopes around Jerusalem, a tree of the kind believed to have provided the crown of thorns in Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion stands unaffected, its fruits ample and foliage green.

While pilgrims prepare to converge on the city at Easter to commemorate the events of Christian tradition, Israeli scientists researching climate change are at work in the surrounding hills studying the Ziziphus Spina-Christi, commonly known as Christ’s Thorn Jujube.

They believe it is a “pioneer species” in the fight against desertification because its hardiness makes it resilient to rising temperatures and aridity. It can draw water from deep underground, and it retains the ability to photosynthesise even when exposed to high temperatures and solar radiation. (snip)

Various plants have been proposed as the source of the crown of thorns the New Testament says was placed on Christ’s head in the lead-up to the crucifixion, and no-one knows for certain. But the consensus among Christian scholars tends towards Ziziphus Spina-Christi.

Just as that crown is associated with suffering and death followed by resurrection, the researchers hope the tree, which provides sustenance to bees and insects, can help support life in areas threatened by deadly heat.

Even uploaded a new facepalm for this occasion.

Read: Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Holidays | Comments Off on Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something | Trackback URL

LA City Councilman Wants To City To Boycott Companies With NRA Ties

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 7:03 am

I wonder if City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell has ever heard of the federal Bill Of Rights and the California Constitution?

(LA Times) A Los Angeles lawmaker wants the city to cut ties with companies that are linked to the National Rifle Assn., saying that its opposition to “common sense gun safety laws” is at odds with the city.

City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell introduced a proposal Wednesday asking city staffers to provide a list of all businesses and groups that have a “formal relationship” with the NRA and lay out options for boycotting them.

“It’s important that we send a message as a city with an annual budget approaching $9 billion,” O’Farrell said, invoking mass shootings in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; Las Vegas; and Parkland, Fla.; as well as gun violence that happens regularly across the country.

“It’s time to speak with one voice and call attention to the assault weapon epidemic,” the councilman said.

Let’s use the Washington Post’s word from earlier: insidious. Let’s use another: un-Constitutional. This would be a blatant violation of the Freedom Of Speech clauses in both the federal and California Constitutions. It’s against people engaged in their free speech and involvement in a private organization that petitions the government for redress of grievance, as well as protesting peaceably. And, while not specifically mentioned, you also have freedom of association

Legally, the freedom of association is considered to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case of N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958), a unanimous Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to reveal to the Alabama attorney general the names and addresses of the NAACP members in the state because it would violate the NAACP members’ freedom of association. Writing for the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said in the decision that…

Just the very notion of the city creating a List of Undesirable Associations should give people the chills. And what is a “formal” relationship? An owner that is a member of the NRA? A few employees who are members?

O’Farrell said he also had asked the City Council to hold off on approving an agreement between FedEx and the Harbor Department to operate a warehouse and office space. FedEx has faced pressure from gun control advocates to stop providing discounted shipping for members of the NRA.

“We have a choice — and they have a choice,” O’Farrell said, arguing that FedEx could follow the path of other companies such as Delta Air Lines that have ended such discounts or other ties. “They could join in this sensible movement to discourage the proliferation of guns.”

This is the kind of abusive government that the 2nd was put in for: because sooner or later the government comes and tries to take the guns. Liberals like O’Farrell should remember how dangerous it is to set a precedent, because this could be turned around some day to go after Leftist groups.

Read: LA City Councilman Wants To City To Boycott Companies With NRA Ties »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Democrats | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

TDS: Trump’s Military Gender Confused Ban Is Insidious Or Something

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 6:44 am

I really don’t care that much about the article, which is about as loopy as it gets. I’m just getting a kick out of the headline. Someone must have had “insidious” as their word of the day

Trump’s transgender troop ban is as insidious as ever

PRESIDENT TRUMP announced a ban on transgender people in the military with a series of tweets last year that surprised many, including senior military leaders. There had been no study, no analysis, no consultation. That arbitrariness was one reason four federal judges have temporarily blocked the policy from going into effect. So when the latest iteration of the ban was rolled out last week, the White House made a point of stressing that it was accompanied by a 44-page Defense Department report and had the backing of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

That, though, doesn’t make the process any less questionable. It also doesn’t make discrimination against transgender people any more acceptable. So let’s hope the courts see through this charade and strike down policies that would unjustly bar transgender people from the military.

The military has plenty of blocks on people with mental illness, and Believing that you’re the opposite sex certainly qualifies. Sure, they may be nice people. Hey, they might even make great members of the military. The gender confused are also much more likely to be depressed and suicidal, which could be a threat to not just themselves, but the people around them.

Nor should they be allowed to join the military just so that they can get the military to pay for their insane gender reassignment surgery and all the medical treatment leading up to it. The military is not here to be a therapy organization.

The ban unveiled Friday by the White House, which won’t go into immediate effect because of the pending court challenges, is slightly more nuanced than the total ban the president staked out in his July tweets. But the effect is no less insidious, in that it would prevent most transgender people from serving in the military and likely would lead to mistreatment and dismissal of some active-duty members.

Anyone with a history of gender dysphoria (the experience of incongruity between birth gender and gender identity) would be disqualified save for limited and undefined circumstances. Also disqualified would be transgender people who have undergone gender transition. Eligible for enlistment and retention are transgender people who agree to serve in their birth gender. As Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights observed, “It means you can’t be transgender.”

You mean men have to be men and women have to be women? Such a “harmful but enticing” thought, eh?

Hey, here’s something that’s insidious: Leftists promoting the mental illness of being gender confused, saying that’s it’s OK.

Read: TDS: Trump’s Military Gender Confused Ban Is Insidious Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Wonky Media | Comments Off on TDS: Trump’s Military Gender Confused Ban Is Insidious Or Something | Trackback URL

NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 7:17 pm

Hot take

On one hand, this could actually expand the types of guns private citizens could own, because this doesn’t actually provide a delineation. I want to hunt with an automatic M16. The verbiage gives me that ability. And, he, I might think that recreation is defending my home. Oh, and I would need the gun at home to make sure I keep it clean. But, of course

https://twitter.com/StarDogCh4mpion/status/978976992572919808

It was about self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. It was about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, and your property against tyrannical and/or abusive government. Sure, you will most likely lose. That’s not the point. You are given the chance to defend yourself. And, perhaps your comrades come to your aid. Perhaps a free press, tasked with holding government accountable, would come to your aid.

And, who would decide “responsible”? That’s the part that kills this whole mess. Perhaps we could rewrite the 1st to no longer include freedom of the press unless they use quill pens and the same type of printing presses and delivery methods (foot and horses) available at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.

Oh, and I wonder if the NY Times has given up its own armed security.

Read: NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Groupthink About Non-Science Consensus Among Warmists Grows

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 3:29 pm

Yet, strangely, the majority aren’t making big changes in their own lives to accord with their Beliefs, such as giving up meat, fossil fuels, living in tiny homes, etc

(Washington Post) Fewer Republicans say they believe that there is a scientific consensus on climate change or that the effects of global warming have already begun, according to a new Gallup poll, which showed a widening partisan gap near record levels.

The moves comes after a year in which President Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” withdrew from the 2015 Paris climate accord and removed climate change from a list of top national security threats.

As Republicans moved in one direction, Democrats have moved in the other. An increasing number of Democrats believe that the effects of global warming have already begun and that warming will pose a “serious threat” in their lifetimes. As in earlier surveys, an overwhelming portion of Democrats are worried about climate change and link it to human activities.

Overall, 45 percent of those surveyed said global warming would pose a serious threat in their lifetimes, the highest overall percentage recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. Despite partisan divisions, majorities of Americans as a whole continue to believe by wide margins that most scientists think global warming is taking place, that it is caused by human activities and that its effects have begun.

But as it did last year, the Gallup poll painted sharp differences between the two parties. Nine out of 10 Democrats worry about global warming and believe it is caused by human activities. Only a third of Republicans do. Seven in 10 Republicans think the seriousness of global warming is “generally exaggerated,” while only 1 in 25 Democrats do.

The only thing missing is actual science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority or all of the minor warming during the current warm period is being caused by the actions of Mankind. You’d think Warmists would want this kind of fact to be out there, but, they are very much against making all the data and methods and sources transparent. But, they want to keep everything secret.

But, anyhow, I’ll ask yet again: if Warmists are so Concerned about man-caused climate change, why do they have such huge carbon footprints? Why are they not making big changes in their own lives?

Read: Poll: Groupthink About Non-Science Consensus Among Warmists Grows »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 28, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are white roofs designed to reduce the carbon pollution temperature, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is JoNova, with a post on how to destroy the grid with a million new electric vehicles.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove