Surprise: We’ve Been Calculating Earth’s Warming Trend All Wrong, So We’re Doomed

By William Teach October 27, 2017 – 5:32 pm

In Science, if you make a hypothesis, and it turns out wrong, you must match the conclusion to the data. In “climate science”, if the conclusion is wrong, change the data to match the hypothesis. And, if you need to do a bit of scaremongering. It’s the new science

New science suggests the ocean could rise more — and faster — than we thought

Climate change could lead to sea level rises that are larger, and happen more rapidly, than previously thought, according to a trio of new studies that reflect mounting concerns about the stability of polar ice.

In one case, the research suggests that previous high end projections for sea level rise by the year 2100 — a little over three feet — could be too low, substituting numbers as high as six feet at the extreme if the world continues to burn large volumes of fossil fuels throughout the century.

I’ll make it easy: they’re trotting out worst case scenarios where you get the type of sea rise that occurred as the last ice age ended. But, of course, even though actual data shows this is all mule fritters scaremongering

“The steady and gradual sea-level rise, observed over the past two centuries [may] not be a complete characterization of how sea level would rise in the future,” the study concludes.

Of course! Their computer models are simply substitutes for palm reading and crystal balls. Obviously, this report is going to be used in the next UN IPCC report.

Another crazy report states that NYC could might possibly maybe WE’RE DOOMED be hit with 500 year floods every 4 years. Mark this prognostication down when it fails.

Read: Surprise: We’ve Been Calculating Earth’s Warming Trend All Wrong, So We’re Doomed »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 27, 2017 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post wishing Hillary Clinton a Birthday.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is Totally Making Bugs Worse Or Something

By William Teach October 27, 2017 – 10:41 am

Bugs are the worst part of going outside, you guys

Bugs Are the Worst Part of Going Outside and Climate Change Is Making It Worse
Bug spray will soon be as ubiquitous as sunscreen. Long sleeves in hot weather will lose their dorky reputation.

For people who enjoy the outdoors, the buzz of a mosquito has always held a feeling of impending doom for itchy torment to come. But imagine if the sound also brought risks to your unborn child, or a trip to a hospital, as it does today in many parts of the world outside of North America.

It is clear that from a certain vantage point, the future will be buggy. Thanks to climate change, insect populations are on the move. Some are being lured to new habitats, while others are coaxed to emerge earlier in the year, and their numbers are growing. Research predicts a proliferation of species capable of eating through ecosystems and spreading disease. But beneath the swarms of pest species, the world is also at risk of losing vast populations of insects less able to adapt. And neither outcome bodes well for us.

This all means doom, as we see from the subhead about needing more bug spray, which they delve in to in the article, and wearing long sleeves. And more and more doom. But, interesting, they do not provide scientific proof that this is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

One wonders how Humanity and the other life on this planet survived during previous warm periods.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally Making Bugs Worse Or Something »

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

Trump Is Expanding The Government’s Secret Deportation Weapon Or Something

By William Teach October 27, 2017 – 7:14 am

Did you know there’s a secret weapon for deporting those who are unlawfully present in the United States? It’s so secret that they even have a name for the process

How Trump is expanding the government’s secret deportation weapon

Under President Donald Trump, immigration arrests have jumped by nearly 35 percent. They’re happening at courthouses, restaurants and in front of people’s homes. And these days, anyone who isn’t authorized to be in the country – from gang members to church pastors – is fair game.

These high-profile arrests put immigrants on high alert and attract media attention, but the actual number of deportations has dropped, in part, because overwhelmed immigration courts just can’t keep up.

The Trump administration has a plan to solve this problem: It wants to dramatically expand the authority of on-the-ground officers to expel immigrants without a judge’s review.

While the move has gotten far less attention than splashy raids and the border fence, it has the potential to radically change immigration enforcement nationwide. But there are already flaws in the current system. And legal experts are raising questions about whether the expansion would violate the U.S. Constitution, and would lead to the wrong people being deported.

This fast-track deportation is called “expedited removal,” and it was designed to quickly deport a certain kind of migrant: those who had recently arrived. For the past two decades, it has been used in a more targeted way near the border. Past administrations have expanded it gradually. Trump’s proposed expansion would take it across the nation.

People within 100 miles of the border who have been unlawfully present for two weeks and under can have this method used against them, and the Supreme Court agrees with this.

Under Trump’s plan, expedited removal would be transformed from a specialized tool for recent crossers arrested near the border to a blanket policy that could be used anywhere, potentially on people with deeper ties to the country. It would be expanded to cover the entire country, for anyone who’d been in the United States for as long as two years, the furthest extent conceivable under the law.

Here’s the thing: it’d be great if it is enacted. Team Trump apparently has discussed doing just this multiple times going back to February, per various media reports, such as this most recent one in July. Why should the taxpayers pony up lots of money to house and feed illegals when they can just deport people who should not be here? A 1996 law gave ICE and the Border Patrol the ability to do this. Right now, though, it’s still just in discussion.

Read: Trump Is Expanding The Government’s Secret Deportation Weapon Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Declares Opioids A Public Health Crisis

By William Teach October 27, 2017 – 6:55 am

CNN’s Dan Merica, usually one to go all sorts of #Resistance when it comes to Trump, provides a mostly balanced article on what Trump’s announcement means

President Donald Trump declared a nationwide public health emergency to combat the opioid crisis Thursday at a White House event, rather than issuing a national disaster declaration.

Both are forms of national emergency declarations, but the primary difference is the scope and funding for each order.

“This epidemic is a national health emergency,” he said. “Nobody has seen anything like what is going on now.”

He added: “As Americans, we cannot allow this to continue. It is time to liberate our communities from this scourge of drug addiction. Never been this way. We can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic. We can do it.”

Trump, through the Public Health Services Act, directed his acting secretary of health and human services to declare a nationwide health emergency, a designation that will not automatically be followed by additional federal funding for the crisis, according to a senior White House official.

Many, such as the NY Times Editorial Board, are having meltdowns that Trump did not use the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which would have immediately released funds meant for national emergencies (the Times is also suddenly against Words, which they used to love when Obama was making empty speeches), like hurricanes and floods. Using the Public Health Services Act, the focus is more tailored and focused.

But both Trump and Obama administration officials say that designation would have been too broad and put an undue burden on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, a fund already cash strapped by recovery efforts from the three major hurricanes that hit the United States this year.

Using FEMA funds to combat the opioid crisis would be “a little bit like asking an engineer to bake a cake,” said Rafael Lemaitre, the former communications director for the White House Drug Policy Office under President Barack Obama.

“I do think the Public Health Service Act is more appropriate route to take than the Stafford Act designation,” he said. “I worked at FEMA for two years and dealt with multiple disasters. The Stafford Act is not structured to deal with a long term, complicated public health crisis like the opioid crisis.”

After this, Dan starts diving into complaints about killing Ocare and stuff, the normal complaints, so, let’s jump to the editorial board of the San Diego Tribune

But the counterargument — that it doesn’t make sense to treat a long-term health crisis like a hurricane — has merit. And the public health emergency declaration is much more than a gesture. It means all affected federal agencies must take necessary emergency steps to reduce opioid overdose deaths. Among its many provisions, Trump’s order gives governors more flexibility in how they use federal grants to address the crisis. And it improves treatment for addicts in isolated rural areas, letting them talk to doctors using telecommunication technologies and get prescriptions without meeting the normal legal requirement they see a doctor in person.

They point out that this is a good start. But, it is important to now fund outreach and treatment by Congress (forgetting there needs to be more enforcement to stop the spread of opioids so that people do not start using them and need treatment.

Sadly, there are plenty of news outlets, both in straight news and opinion, who are manufacturing ways to bash Trump on this, rather than giving him the help and cheerleading needed to get it done.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Declares Opioids A Public Health Crisis »

Posted in Current Affairs, Donald Trump | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

“The Electoral College Is Not A Creation Of The Constitution” Or Something

By William Teach October 26, 2017 – 4:50 pm

The head of the Sore Loser Party is not only being a sore loser, but is Constitutionally illiterate (via Hot Air)

(Free Beacon)  Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” during a Tuesday night speech.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”

The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

As Jazz Shaw notes

Just a brief observation in closing here. This is the guy the Democrats elected to lead their party out of the wilderness after the beating they took last fall. I’ll be the first to admit that there are some obscure bits of the Constitution that I couldn’t recite without looking them up first, but the establishment of the electoral college is a faily big deal. If Tom Perez didn’t even know that much about it, have the Dems really found the right man for the job?

It is something that the head of the DNC, someone who has been in government forever, should know. One has to wonder, though, if this is the start of a push by Democrats to make a claim, no matter how false, that the EC was something that was simply created extra-Constitutionally. That may seem outlandish, but, their base is made of sheep who’ll believe, or at least repeat, anything they are told, and, since the news media is primarily controlled Democrats, do not be surprised if this starts coming up.

Read: “The Electoral College Is Not A Creation Of The Constitution” Or Something »

Posted in Constitution, Democrats | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 26, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil automatic assault gun, supported by people who do not believe in climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on a Liberal changing his mind on gun control.

Interestingly, I uploaded the photo before I went searching for whom to link. Just serendipity.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Draft Interior Dept Report Doesn’t Mention ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 26, 2017 – 10:30 am

For those Warmists who are upset, you should have run a better candidate. Oh, and you should prove you believe by giving up your own use of fossil fuels and making your lives carbon neutral

No mention of climate change in Interior’s draft strategic plan

A draft version of the Interior Department’s five-year strategic plan does not mention anything about climate change, including whether the agency plans to fight it or how it will adapt.

The draft, first reported by The Nation, focuses heavily on plans to produce more fossil fuels and other forms of energy on public lands and the nation’s outer continental shelf.

“The DOI provides access to and manages energy and other resources including oil, gas, coal, water, timber, grazing, and non‐energy minerals on public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),” reads a part of the draft plan that describes how the agency will generate revenue and use natural resources.

“The DOI is committed to achieve and maintain American energy dominance through responsible productivity of the public lands for the multiple use and economic benefit of present and future generations,” it continues.

That sounds like a good plan. Why should we get energy from other, and often hostile, nations when we get get it here.

But the draft document doesn’t mention climate change at all.

By contrast, the previous plan, written by the Obama administration and covering 2014 through 2018, mentioned climate change more than 40 times.

Elections have consequences.

Read: Bummer: Draft Interior Dept Report Doesn’t Mention ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Non-Celts: Stop Appropriating Halloween

By William Teach October 26, 2017 – 8:33 am

It’s the time of the year where loopy SJWs nag about costumes and cultural appropriation. Colleges across the country are lecturing on what costumes are Allowed, and which ones are Mean. They’re having lectures and symposiums, putting out memos. This occurs as well in high schools and elementary schools, where some even have said “no costumes.” And, of course, we have nutty articles preaching to teens, like this one from Teen Vogue by Jessica Andrews

Cultural Appropriation at Halloween: My Culture Is Not a Costume

It’s time to change the conversation around cultural appropriation. The term has been reduced to mere internet outrage, and dismissed as a tool devised by the “fun police” to keep people from enjoying Halloween. But the reality is cultural appropriation is a stain on American history. It’s the manifestation of one of the earliest, most enduring racist ideals: the belief that people who belong to marginalized cultures are somehow less than human. Once you’ve dehumanized someone, you can co-opt their culture with ease; their language, dress, and customs aren’t worthy of the respect you reserve for your own. On top of centuries of oppression, marginalized groups must now contend with people mocking their identity, right in front of their faces. And when they speak up, critics rush to attack and silence them.

Pure Victimhood. Whining whiners. People who need to get over themselves. People used to celebrate the differences in culture. It’s a way of bringing us all together. Now? If you speak a few words of Spanish and you’re white, you are demonized by these wankers

In this climate, we asked 6 brave women to explain what cultural appropriation means to them — and how it feels to see their culture worn and discarded. Their answers reveal the painful, human side of cultural appropriation. Gianna Collier-Pitts breaks down why the Afro wig is not just a fun hairpiece to wear and discard after a Halloween party. “Our hair is stigmatized as being untidy and this costume is incredibly insensitive to the real struggles African-Americans have wearing their natural hair.” Through tears, Cashman Aiu explains why it’s hurtful to see people co-opt Hawaiian culture for a night of revelry. “One of the things about Hawaiian culture that not a lot of people know is that historically it was illegal to practice anything that had to do with native Hawaiian culture. My grandmother is currently in her 70s, and she’s finally learning how to dance hula. And she’s been creating her hula skirt and lei for weeks now, and this is nothing like what it looks like. This costume is extremely hurtful, not only for myself but the generations that had to go through this erasure.”

These are simply miserable people who have bought into being Victims, and want to drag everyone else into their miserableness.

With this video, we challenge you to look into the faces of the people whose culture you co-opt. Hear their stories of being shamed for their lei, hijab, and Afro, only to see their peers make a mockery of it. See their reactions — tears, scowls, laughs to “keep from crying” — as they come face-to-face with culturally appropriative costumes, sent to us by some of the world’s biggest online retailers. Watch them triumphantly tear those same costumes apart, a symbolic act and a call-to-arms to young people to end cultural appropriation with our generation. Most importantly, listen to their message. These costumes aren’t funny and harmless; cultural appropriation isn’t senseless outrage. It’s a painful, dehumanizing attack on their culture, their history, their very existence. And it should have no place in our society — at Halloween and beyond.

First of all, fortunately, most people do not buy into this cultural appropriation garbage, and just go on with their lives. They do not feel that they’re doing anything wrong. It’s just a costume. It’s just someone making good food like tacos. They aren’t worried about a call to arms.

Second, though, if they really want to push this, if “cultural appropriation isn’t senseless outrage” (it is), then these same people who are whining about cultural appropriation should not be eating, wearing, speaking, practicing, or using anything that doesn’t come from their culture. For instance……Halloween!

Halloween is an annual holiday, celebrated each year on October 31, that has roots in age-old European traditions. It originated with the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, when people would light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off ghosts. In the eighth century, Pope Gregory III designated November 1 as a time to honor all saints; soon, All Saints Day incorporated some of the traditions of Samhain. The evening before was known as All Hallows Eve, and later Halloween. Over time, Halloween evolved into a day of activities like trick-or-treating and carving jack-o-lanterns. Around the world, as days grow shorter and nights get colder, people continue to usher in the season with gatherings, costumes and sweet treats.

If we apply the foundation of (the insane) cultural appropriation meme, then, if you are not of Celtic descent, then you may not celebrate Halloween. Period. Full stop. That’s fair, is it not?

What’s that you’re saying, Little SJW? That’s not fair? That’s mean to force you to stop celebrating Halloween? Tough. Having you celebrate Halloween is painful and dehuminizing.  It’s extremely painful. It’s racist!!!!!! So, stop it!

Read: Hey, Non-Celts: Stop Appropriating Halloween »

Posted in Halloween, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Judge Sides With Trump On Cost Sharing Payments, Refuses To Force Federal Government To Make Them

By William Teach October 26, 2017 – 7:51 am

Who would have thought that a judge would not require the federal government to not make payments to insurance companies that another judge had already ruled unConstitutional

(The Hill) A federal court in California has struck down an emergency motion that would have forced the Trump administration to continue making ObamaCare subsidy payments to insurers.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion for an injunction, saying that he was skeptical that cutting off the payments known as cost-sharing reductions (CSR) would cause an immediate injury to residents of the state.

He noted many states, including California, saw “the writing on the wall” and took actions to mitigate any potential harm if the payments were ended.

“To be sure, the absence of money for CSR payments does not seem to be causing health care reform to come crumbling down,” Chhabria wrote in his ruling.

California allowed insurers to add a surcharge to the mid-level silver plans, which increases the amount of tax credit subsidies available. So even though premiums would spike for silver plans, consumers would have other, cheaper options.

Many other states have done the same thing, and did it in response to a judge ruling that cost-sharing, ie, insurance company bailouts, was unconstitutional, as the Democrats had made no provision to actually force funding. They did it in this manner as to keep the roughly $7 billion a year payments off the CBO scorecard.

Chhabria said the ability of states to act in advance and shield consumers undercuts the argument that people will face higher premiums because the cost-sharing payments are ending.

He suggested if states are so concerned that people will be scared away from signing up for insurance on the exchanges because of the thought of higher premiums, they should “stop yelling about higher premiums.”

It’s interesting how Democrats weren’t actually concerned about the rising cost of premiums because of Obamacare, nor the high deductibles in Obamacare plans, but are now screeching about higher premiums because the insurance companies …. at least those left in this collapsing initiative … are getting their bailout money.

This does not mean that the judge might not rule in favor of the insurance company bailouts, er, cost sharing reductions, later, as the suit will go forward, per the judge’s order. But, they are stopped for now.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Judge Sides With Trump On Cost Sharing Payments, Refuses To Force Federal Government To Make Them »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove