Warmists Sues, Saying Academic Critiques Are Defamation Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 10:30 am

As Robert Tracinski points out, this is not how science works. It’s almost like Warmists do not want their studies and such reviewed for accuracy because they have ulterior motives

(The Federalist) If we have such an overwhelming scientific “consensus” about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made global warming—and about the political and economic solutions to it—then why do advocates have to sue scientists to prevent them from questioning it? That’s the question raised by a $10 million lawsuit lawsuit filed by Stanford engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson accusing other scientists of defamation for critiquing his scientific work in favor of “renewal energy.”

That’s not how science works. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work.

Jacobson made a name for himself and became something of a media celebrity for publishing a study in 2015 that claimed the United States could provide 100 percent of its energy needs from wind, solar, and hydroelectric power by 2050—and at a lower cost than with fossil fuels. (snip)

Earlier this year, a group of 21 experts led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Christopher Clack definitively debunked Jacobson’s claims in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper’s abstract sums up the case: “In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.”

Jacobson intentionally excluded nuclear energy in his study, which is one of the reason he got pushback. So, yeah, he’s gone on to sue for defamation, as they asserted he made a modeling error.

Tacinski goes on to note that, for one thing, this is not defamation, and the point of the suit is to harass scientific rivals with frivolous lawsuits, in much the same way Michael “Robust Debate” Mann has sued those who took on his “hockey stick” silliness. This is all meant to discourage scientists and others from criticizing sloppy and/or complete mule fritters papers in the future, as, people might not want to spend the time and money defending against frivolous suits.

Read: Warmists Sues, Saying Academic Critiques Are Defamation Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Tax Plan Might Get Rid Of Electric Vehicle Tax Break

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 7:49 am

What is interesting in this is that so many outlets were reporting that the tax break might go away with the GOP tax plan. While they were all guessing, since they didn’t wait for the plan to be released (some were still guessing after it was released), few published anything that said “yeah, it’s going away.” The USA Today is part of the latter

(USA Today) The House Republican tax plan would ax the tax credit for electric-vehicle buyers, dealing a blow to the ambitions of Tesla and other battery-car makers as they try to give the nascent technology mainstream appeal.

The tax overhaul proposed Thursday would eliminate the tax credit of up to $7,500 that’s currently offered to buyers of vehicles such as the Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf.

The tax credit is viewed as crucial to propelling technology that’s currently more expensive than comparable internal combustion engine cars.

Proponents of eliminating the incentive say the government shouldn’t pick one technology over another, or should cut most tax credits to simplify the overall code and lower rates.

I thought Liberals hated tax breaks and “loopholes”. No? Realistically, there should be no tax break. People who buy gas vehicles that get great gas mileage do not get them. People who buy minivans to haul around their children do not get them. Why should EVs get them? Especially since many, like the Teslas, are really for people of wealth. Your average middle class person is not going to be purchasing a vehicle costing over $100,000.

And they do not always equate to a savings of $7500. They will often be much less. Furthermore, if you lease the vehicle, which many do, the money goes to the manufacturer, not the consumer. Also, the credit is based on the battery pack capacity. For instance, if you buy a Toyota Prius EV, it only qualifies for a $4,502 federal tax credit.

As for the rest of the plan? Well, there are some winners and losers. Businesses, both large and small, are winners, which is generally a good thing, because people work for them, and tend to win. The reduction of the corporate tax rate is a the biggest aspect of the bill. It will supposedly allow citizens to file their taxes on a postcard (really, just one page). And other things. Obviously, Democrats are trotting out their same old talking points, because they have nothing else, and have no actual ideas they’re willing to put forth. But, really, this bill is small ball. It will supposedly save the average family a bit over $1100 a year. Hey, we can all use a bit more of the money we earned to stay in our pockets, right? But, it’s small ball. Sure, small ball works. Get ’em on, get ’em over, get ’em in (didn’t work well for my Dodgers in game 7, since their 2-5 hitters weren’t). This bill doesn’t really swing for the bleachers.

Read: Trump Tax Plan Might Get Rid Of Electric Vehicle Tax Break »

Posted in Global Warming, Taxation | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 6:59 am

Let’s go back in time, shall we? Representative Joe Wilson was excoriated in 2009 for yelling “you lie!” about Obama’s statement that illegal aliens will not receive Obamacare. Politifact went through some serious gymnastics to claim that Joe’s statement was false. Of course, we’ve seen over the years that Joe was correct, and that many states, such as California, have attempted to give illegals Obamacare. Then this from Bloomberg

How Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Threatens Obamacare

As Obamacare open enrollment begins, health-care providers in immigrant communities worry that the Trump administration’s hard line on immigration will spook some immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives away from seeking health insurance.

In Baltimore, families with mixed immigration status “are telling us that they have a newfound hesitance to provide any information to the government” since Trump was elected, said Sarah Polk, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

President Donald Trump has cut outreach to promote health-insurance enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He’s also made curbing immigration and deporting undocumented residents a centerpiece of his presidency.

Polk says most of her patients are kids born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, including many who came to the U.S. fleeing violence in Mexico and Central America. One patient’s father was arrested after leaving his child’s school. Another man was detained outside the Walgreens pharmacy on Eastern Avenue, where many of her patients fill prescriptions.

About a quarter of all the children in the U.S.—or about 18 million, most of them U.S.-born—have at least one immigrant parent, according to Census data analyzed by the Migration Policy Institute.

And while those children may be eligible for coverage, fear of deportation could discourage their parents from seeking it. In the past, research has linked declines in enrollment in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor, to stricter immigration enforcement. Adults who might be eligible for Medicaid or ACA coverage could also be discouraged from applying out of fear that it could draw attention to undocumented relatives.

You notice several things. First, we see that many people are sheltering illegal aliens, in violation of federal law. Second, through all the literary gymnastics, illegals are applying for Obamacare and Medicaid. We can also read between the lines and realize that many of these “kids” are Dreamers, meaning that, regardless of what Obama tried, they are unlawfully present in the United States, and therefore have no lawful status to apply for Ocare, and certainly not any cost sharing.

Let’s not forget that Obamacare provided not provision for verifying the citizenship of anyone applying for Ocare. This means both legal and illegal aliens would be able to get Ocare plans, and, does anyone really think that they will pay the full price with Liberals essentially in charge of the bureaucracy?

Polk, the Baltimore pediatrician, said parents seem committed to maintaining access to care for their children. But in immigrant communities, federal enforcement has taken a toll on people’s health. She’s seen a rise in mental health symptoms among kids, including acts of self-harm such as cutting—a sign of anxiety and depression. “There’s just a very high level of fear.”

Committing criminal activity often leads to mental issues. This could be solved by them ending their criminality by leaving the United States.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare | Trackback URL

Surprise: Senate Democrats Throw Around Lies On Republican Tax Plan

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 3:45 pm

And the lie itself is very interesting. The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, knocks it down. He starts out by noting the tweets of several Senate Dems, such as Excitable Kamala Harris, Robert Casey, and Jeff Merkley, where they tell us that families making $86000 and under will see a tax increase of $794, like

The Harris and Casey ones look to have been deleted, but, plenty of others are pushing this meme

We traced the talking point to a document put out by the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, essentially the communications arm of Senate Democrats. That document laid out a series of statistics, tailored for each individual state, that purported to show how damaging the evolving Republican tax plan would be for middle-class Americans.

That document had this line on each state page: “The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794, a significant burden for middle-class families.”

Now, Kessler goes into more detail on this, and ends up giving it 4 Pinocchios. And, let’s remember, this was before the plan was released (I’m not touching anything on the plan till I have a chance to actually see it, but, from early reports, it’s a cockup of all sorts of different things, many of which do not make sense).

What is more interesting is that Democrats are pitching a fit over what they used to consider to be chump change. Remember, peoples’ health insurance costs going up hundreds or thousands of dollars is considered chump change. Saving millions, even billions, by doing away with idiot programs is not worth it, because that’s chump change. Oh, and my bigger point and focus is on all the ‘climate change’ initiatives, such as carbon taxes/fees. Reports say that people will pay anywhere from $300 to $3000 more a year due to the policies of the Cult of Climastrology.

We’re told constantly that a couple hundred here, a couple hundred there is just chump change. Even though these same Warmists refuse to change their own lives voluntarily to accords with their talking points.

So, $794 is HUGE!!!!! But, thousands more, while limiting freedom, liberty, the ability to easily travel, and so forth is a big nothingburger in Warmist World.

Read: Surprise: Senate Democrats Throw Around Lies On Republican Tax Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible pig causing massive sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on physical fitness.

Read: If All You See… »

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

‘Climate Change’ Is Going To Put A Damper On Beer Or Something

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 10:48 am

This is not a new idea. It’s something that’s been thrown around by Warmists for years. But, hey, like any doomy prognostication from the Cult of Climastrology, it has to be repeated every once in a while with even more Doom

Climate change is hurting craft breweries

First it came for the wine. Now, climate change is set to put a damper on the world’s supply of beer.

Small breweries in the Pacific Northwest are struggling with a shortage of hops, a key ingredient in beer. Washington, Oregon and Idaho grow almost all the hops in the country, according to the US Department of Agriculture, and those states have seen increasingly harsher droughts over the past few years.

Two years ago, an unusually warm winter led to widespread drought in Washington’s Yakima Valley, a situation that could repeat itself this year. Scientists say these warm winters will likely become standard in another 50 years.

“We are reaching this kind of tipping point,” said NASA climate scientist Joshua Fisher. “What we’ve been used to in terms of how much rain we’re going to get and how plants grow is no longer the norm.”

Some people have noted, when it comes to gluten, that Mankind did pretty well for millions of years eating gluten, yet, suddenly, everyone is allergic to it (not for real, of course). Likewise, Mankind did just fine for millions of years adapting to changes in the climate, both big and small, yet, suddenly, we are fricking doomed from a tiny increase in global temperatures, and farmers apparently have no way to adapt (per Warmist doctrine, of course).

Of course

2016 USA HOP HARVEST AT FIVE YEAR HIGH WITH 87.1 MILLION POUNDS OF HOPS

I don’t think we need more than the headline, do we?

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Going To Put A Damper On Beer Or Something »

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

DOJ Threatens To Pull Funding From California Over Sanctuary State Law

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 8:14 am

There should be consequences for passing a law that protects illegal aliens

(Fox News) The Department of Justice issued California another stern warning Wednesday – drop its sanctuary state status or remain in violation of federal law and potentially lose out on millions of dollars.

Earlier this month, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a so-called “sanctuary state” bill which basically erects a wall between California law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement officers. The bill forbids California cops from providing release and other information that isn’t publicly available in response to a request for notification from federal law enforcement.

Supporters argue that sanctuary policies allow local and state law enforcement officers to build crucial relationships with immigrant communities. Critics say not turning over people living in the country illegally puts the public in danger. Wednesday’s letter urges California to comply federal statute (8 USC 1373) which bars local jurisdictions from limiting communication with federal law enforcement about a person’s immigration status or whereabouts. The letter states that California’s new law (SB54) “May violate,” 1373.

Department of Justice Officials tell Fox News this situation could result with future federal grants being withheld from California, that threat has been a common thread in this ongoing story. However DOJ officials also tell Fox they could “clawback” funds already awarded to the Golden State.

This could mean the loss of tens of millions in assistance from Los Federales. Really, though, there’s a better solution: Jeff Sessions should say that all illegals in the US are safe if they stay in California. That ICE and other federal agencies won’t operate in California. And then we watch the state collapse under the weight of having to care for all these illegals, as the schools, criminal justice system, hospitals, healthcare system, etc. are over-burdened. And then the feds should refuse to send extra money. It’s a “be careful what you wish for, California, you might just get it” situation.

Of course, that won’t happen. Nor will using the illegal immigration laws on the books about sheltering and helping illegal aliens be applied to California state and local officials. That’s what should really happen, namely, arrest a few and charge them with aiding and abetting illegals in violation of US Code.

Meanwhile, in the People’s Republik Of California, farmers are having a tough time getting workers

California is facing a farmworker shortage, and the blame is landing on the country’s changing immigration landscape.

Almost 70 percent of farmers around California are reporting labor shortages this year, according to a survey by the California Farm Bureau.

Yolo County farmer Jim Durst says he blames his shortage on President Donald Trump.

“When people don’t feel safe, and they’ve created a level of hostility in our country, people go into hiding they become incognito,” said Jim Durst.

Well, then they shouldn’t be hiring illegal aliens. It does show that Trump’s immigration push is working.

Read: DOJ Threatens To Pull Funding From California Over Sanctuary State Law »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: The Answer To Terrorist Attacks Is Totally Clear

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 7:52 am

In the wake of the terrorist attack by a radicalized Muslim from Uzbekistan (a nation that has been a significant hotbed of Islamic extremism for a long time) the NY Times was initially silent, unlike, say, in the aftermath of Las Vegas. You knew the would eventually find their voice, though, right? First of, the NY Times Editorial Board decided to attack President Trump, along with the notions of border control and extreme vetting, much as the Washington Post EB did. But, they also did this

After The Terror

Murderous attacks by a brooding “lone wolf” attacker or full-blooded “terrorist” have become, alas, a blight of our times, an eruption of random killing that can strike a cafe, a crowded promenade, a country music festival or a bike path in New York.

Each new attack is met by anguished questions: Why?

Um, because of the spread of extremist Islam would be my guess. And it certainly did not help that ISIS grew and spread under Mr. Obama’s watch.

Could not the police have prevented the attack? Sayfullo Saipov, in custody now after the attack in Manhattan on Tuesday that left eight people dead, is said to have been planning his death spree for weeks and had links to people who were the focus of terrorism investigations. Was there really no sign that he — or the shooter in Las Vegas, or the killers in Barcelona, Nice, Berlin, London, Stockholm or Paris, all places where innocent people have been killed by hate-filled fools — was about to commit an atrocity?

Well, fortunately, Leftists, Progressives, both here in the United States and around Europe, and to some small degree in Australia, have worked overtime to stop investigations into radical Islam, into the mosques and schools, and into the people who all are right there radicalizing Muslims. These same Progressives create situations where many are afraid to say something when they see something, which is how we got situations like the child sex abuse in Rotherham, UK. They’ve essentially declared all things as “Islamophobia.”

But the hard fact is that it is not possible, and never will be, to anticipate every attack, to make cities teeming with life immune to the desperate acts of men seething with resentments, especially when final preparations are as banal as renting a truck.

They are correct on that. There are always bad people out there. But, we shouldn’t make it easy for them, such as, say, letting in someone on a permanent resident visa for some silly diversity push from a place which is a hotbed of Islamic radicalism, who reportedly brought 23 relatives with him using chain migration.

And as for the tiresome calls for draconian border controls, could immigration authorities really have foreseen in 2010 that a 22-year-old arrival from Uzbekistan — which is not on the list of countries on the Trump administration’s travel ban — would be radicalized and evolve into a killer? Mr. Saipov’s cries of “Allahu akbar” and other evidence speak to an affinity for the Islamic State, but it does not require a long apprenticeship in a terrorist network to rent a Home Depot truck and drive onto a bicycle path.

It’s funny how the NY Times is more likely to protect Islamic radicals and attack Trump and those who think that border control is a pretty good idea, eh?

Therein is the most anguished of the questions posed by terrorism: How do we, as a society that cherishes our freedoms, that draws strength from its diversity, respond to terrorism that explicitly rejects those values and seeks to infect us with the killer’s grisly cynicism? To that, the answer should be clear.

It is pretty clear, but, I’m betting the answer from the high muckity mucks of the NY Times, who live in enclaves that are not in danger of terrorist attacks by radicalized Muslims, nor have a problem with crime from illegal aliens, nor have any of the plebes around (unless they are there to cut the grass and clean the toilets), is vastly different from what the rest of us think. Their clear is certainly “open borders, protect all Islam even the extremist parts, and just deal with the fallout when it arises.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: The Answer To Terrorist Attacks Is Totally Clear »

Posted in Dhimmitude, RoP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

We Could End ‘Climate Change’ By Doing Just One Thing Or Something

By William Teach November 1, 2017 – 1:30 pm

And preferably with the Helping Hand Of Government (rules), as brought to us by Jimmy Pierson, the UK director of ProVeg International

We could end climate change by 2057 – we just have to make one very simple change

It’s 2057. Forty years from now. What does the world look like? Forget any dystopian visions you might have seen – there can be a glorious future ahead of us all. Here’s a quick look.

Let’s start with one of the greatest achievements in the history of humankind: curbing climate change. We did it. We managed to halt its seemingly unstoppable path to destruction. Best of all, it was done by the people. Through individual action alone, food emissions are down by around 70 per cent.

Our oceans are once again full of life, our rivers repopulated and unpolluted. Trees are back on previously bare hills, and wild animalshave taken up residence in our countryside. We’ve re-engaged and reconnected with nature, and we are much happier for it.

It’s kumbaya land, where type 2 diabetes is virtually gone, no one is obese, heat disease is way down, beating cancer is almost here, children are playing outside (only if they get rid of smartphones), hunger is gone, and

We also fundamentally overhauled our food system. The UK took the opportunity presented by Brexit to become a world leader in creating a sustainable food system that provided jobs, fed families and consigned food banks to the past. Other countries soon followed our lead.

As part of this shake-up, fresher, healthier foods now enjoy government subsidies, making them more affordable and accessible for all. Good health is not determined by class, race, gender, financial status or any other factor.

Isn’t it interesting how everything revolves around giving Government massive new power? In the UK, they already control healthcare. Now the Warmists want to give them control of our food.

How was this new world achieved? By major technological breakthrough? Did science come along to solve all our problems? No. It was a change so simple you probably wouldn’t believe it. We just started substituting meat with plant-based alternatives. Meal by meal, day by day, we transitioned to plant-based living.

And if we do this (by government force), we’ll live in this awesome vegan utopia where the weather is 100% predictable because it doesn’t ever change!

These people are such nags.

Read: We Could End ‘Climate Change’ By Doing Just One Thing Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 1, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible moo cows causing drought and floods, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post noting that losing an election doesn’t exclude Hillary from investigating her own collusion.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove