If All You See…

…is a cup of coffee that will soon disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on Graham-Cassidy Ocare “repeal”.

Read: If All You See… »

Chance For Graham-Cassidy (Non) Ocare Repeal Rising?

It looks like this may actually happen

(The Hill)  The Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress are going all-in on a last-ditch effort to replace ObamaCare.

Earlier this month, the GOP effort was all but dead as Republican leaders pivoted to tax reform. But the health-care legislation has picked up a significant amount of momentum over the past several days.

“I’ve never felt better about where we’re at,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the bill’s sponsors, told reporters after senators met with Vice President Pence to discuss the new health-care proposal.

“At the end of the day, I really believe we’re going to get 50 Republican votes,” he added.

Many Republicans in the Senate and in Governor’s mansions are really enthused about this bill.

The upcoming deadline of Sept. 30 has also played a leading role in the rising prospects of the legislation. If an ObamaCare replacement bill isn’t signed into law by then under budget reconciliation rules, it would need 60 votes to pass.

Under the special rules, 50 votes plus a tie-breaker from Pence would send it to the House, where leading Republicans have indicated they would pass it and send it to Trump’s desk before the end of the month.

Rand Paul is a big “NO” on this bill.

He’s been all over the news stations this morning and the past few days, explaining that it is exactly Ocare light, that it just shifts some chairs around, but the chairs are the same. That this is not “federalism”, a word that keeps being thrown out by VP Mike Pence and other Graham-Cassidy supporters, but, doesn’t seem to be a word they understand. Is it better than Ocare? Yes. But not by much, and not as much as National Review would like to tell us (sadly).

Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, has one thing right: The latest Republican bill on health care is not a repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Under it, the Affordable Care Act’s taxes, spending, and regulation would mostly remain in place. Of course, previous Republican bills left a lot of Obamacare in place, too. For many months it has been clear that Republicans do not have the votes for a true replacement.

Where Paul is wrong is in opposing the Graham-Cassidy bill on that basis. A true replacement of Obamacare would be better than Graham-Cassidy, but Graham-Cassidy is still much better than Obamacare. It abolishes the individual and employer mandates, caps per capita spending on Medicaid, blocks federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion, and lets interested states attain freedom from some of Obamacare’s regulations. Some of those states could use that freedom to create markets in which people outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and employer-based coverage would finally be enabled to buy cheap, renewable catastrophic-insurance policies.

In essence, it’s Ocare lite. It does NOT abolish Obamacare nor replace it with the legislation that was promised. The federal government is entirely in control of our health insurance and health care way too much. And, if it manages to pass the Senate, then pass the House, then signed by President Trump, it won’t be revisited. It won’t be made better. They won’t attempt to do things like allowing cross state insurance. They’ll think they’re done, and move on, and we’ll still be stuck with massive governmental intrusion.

Read: Chance For Graham-Cassidy (Non) Ocare Repeal Rising? »

Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended

It’s amazing: we’re now told that the models are wrong. But Mankind is still to blame

Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists said previous models may have been “on the hot side”.

The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

But the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

Remember back to Dr. Roy Spencer stating that the real consensus was 95%, as in, 95% of the models were wrong

He did this back in 2014. Looks like the Warmists are attempting to actually redo their models while still attempting to Blamestorm Mankind’s “carbon pollution.” They are still calling for “carbon budgets”, which would, of course, include carbon taxes and fees, more government control of citizens, economies, private entities, and the energy sector, and more loss of freedom coupled with a higher cost of living.

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

But speaking to The Times he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.

As James Delingpole notes

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Exactly. The facts have not changed. The facts are the actual observations (well, the kinda do change, as the Warmists adjust, massage, smooth, and simply make up the data), and the observations disagree with the computer models, as Dr. Spencer noted.

Paul Homewood writes

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Powerline digs into the story, and comes up with an interesting tidbit, in regards to the Professor Grubb quote above

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]

A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun.

This is pretty much a vindication of what Skeptics have been saying for well over a decade, and exposes what I’ve been writing and saying for a long time: this is fake science designed to prop up Progressive (nice Fascist) ideology and policy pushes.

But, don’t for one minute think they’ll stop. To paraphrase The Terminator “Listen, and understand! That Warmists are out there! They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead paying lots of taxes!”

Read: Surprise: Global Warming Occurring More Slowly Than Portended »

Unlawfully Present Dreamers Sue Trump Over DACA Cancellation

It’s rather ironic: a bunch of people who are illegally present in the United States who were given temporary status by an executive order that did not go through the rule making process are now suing because Trump said he’d end it in 6 months over not being put through the rule making process

(The Hill) Six “Dreamers” — immigrants brought into the country illegally as children — are suing the Trump administration over President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Reuters reported Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco federal court Monday, is the first to be brought against the administration by recipients of the program. DACA provided its recipients with work permits and protection from deportation.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the Trump administration didn’t follow proper administrative procedures when deciding to end the program and that officials violated due process by revoking an enforcement promise, according to Reuters.

Two of the people suing Trump are Dulce Garcia, a San Diego attorney, and Jirayut “New” Latthivongskorn, a fourth-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco.

The lawyer should understand that any presidential EO can be cancelled by another EO. The original did not go through the rule making process, it was simply implemented by Obama unilaterally. Furthermore, as far as public comments go? We did go through that process: it was called “an election.”

Due process? Over a promise from Mr. Obama? No. Silly

This is the latest lawsuit brought against Trump over his decision to end DACA. Several states have joined together to file a massive lawsuit to block Trump from stopping the program, and the University of California is also suing over the move.

One would think some lawyer somewhere would explain that Executive Orders are not permanent, that they can be cancelled at any time by another. Furthermore, they might explain that the EO was outside the legal boundaries established by Congress, since it gave legal status to people The Law considers to be legal, and excepted them from deportation completely, in contradiction to law.

Really, the illegal alien loving groups should think hard about what they’re doing, because they could push Trump to simply cancel DACA in total, particularly if Congress is not able to do anything by the end of the 6 months. He could wash his hands of the whole thing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Unlawfully Present Dreamers Sue Trump Over DACA Cancellation »

‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Doom Coastal Cities Or Something

Neil deGrasse Tyson continues to bring the climacrazy

(Live Science) The United States “might not be able to recover” from climate change if extreme weather events and flooding continue to swamp the country’s largest coastal cities, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson told CNN yesterday (Sept. 17).

In an interview with reporter and TV host Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s “GPS,” Tyson discussed hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which dumped rain and brought heavy winds and storm surges to Texas and Florida, respectively.

When asked about Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert’s response to the hurricanes — that is, declining to say whether climate change had intensified the storms — Tyson lost his patience.

“Fifty inches of rain in Houston!” Tyson said, according to CNN. “This is a shot across our bow, a hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida!”

That’s called weather. We’ve discussed this many times. We’ve also discussed that it was almost 12 years between major landfalling hurricanes. Is that ‘climate change’, too?

Research shows that human-caused climate change can make storms more extreme than they would be otherwise, Live Science reported previously. But humankind has been slow to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, Tyson said, adding that the longer people take to respond to climate change, the bleaker the outcome for humanity gets.

They also quote Michael “Robust Debate” Mann, but, forget to ask other scientists, who say there is no proof of the assertion. Nor the UN IPCC, which won’t take a stance on this, either. Because they don’t have scientific proof of this, just talking points.

“I worry that we might not be able to recover from this, because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water’s edges, historically for commerce and transportation,” Tyson said on CNN.

These cities will be the first to go as water levels rise, Tyson said. “And we don’t have a system — we don’t have a civilization with the capacity to pick up a city and move it inland 20 miles [32 kilometers],” he said. “This is happening faster than our ability to respond. That could have huge economic consequences.”

Well, guess what? You can’t come to ours. You know, all the “flyover country” you Leftist Warmists denigrate? Of course, it’s not really going to happen. It’s just more hysterical doom-saying from cultists.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Doom Coastal Cities Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle that No One Else should be allowed to drive, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on Trump being right about being bugged.

Read: If All You See… »

Climanutters Link California Earthquake With ‘Climate Change’

A magnitude 3.6 earthquake occurred near Westwood, California at 11:20pm California time Monday night. This is nothing unusual, being that the state is on what is scientifically called a “plate boundary.” Twitchy noted some people tweeted about it, but, they missed this, which was entirely predictable

Read More »

Read: Climanutters Link California Earthquake With ‘Climate Change’ »

Happy International Talk Like A Pirate Day 2017 (Sticky For The Day)

Talk Like A Pirate Day
Illustration by Ghergich & Co.

That’s right, mateys, it’s International Talk Like A Pirate Day! Aaaaaar!

Read More »

Read: Happy International Talk Like A Pirate Day 2017 (Sticky For The Day) »

Nancy Pelosi Gets Shutdown By Angry DACA Recipients

Nancy Pelosi learned a valuable lesson: you reap what you sow

‘You’re a Liar’: Pro-Immigration Demonstrators Confront Pelosi Over DACA Talks With Trump

Things got a little heated Monday when a group of young immigrants confronted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a pro-DACA press conference in San Francisco.

Several dozen young immigrants shouted down the top House Democrat, following her recent conversations with President Donald Trump over the future of a program that grants many of them legal status.

“We are immigrant youth, undocumented and unafraid,” they chanted, taking over a scheduled press conference Pelosi, along with Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman, organized to call for the immediate passage of the Dream Act, a federal proposal that offered many of the same protections as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, but was never approved by Congress.

Pelosi et all where there to help the illegal aliens, and this is the treatment they received. And pro-amensty folks wonder why so many of us are against providing a pathway to citizenship, when those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. act like this, when they start Demanding that we give them citizenship, instead of politely, respectfully, and contritely asking.

Here’s just one snippet of the event

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/909861874409205760

There’s plenty more video at the original link, which includes

“You’re fighting deportation,” the group asked, over and over again.

“Yes, I’m, yes, I’m,” Pelosi responded.

“You’re a liar, you’re a liar,” protesters said, attacking her about her efforts to stop deportation.

“You don’t know what you’re taking about,” a visibly upset Pelosi responded.

“It’s clear you don’t want any answers,” Pelosi told the group. “It’s clear.”

Pelosi then walked out of the press conference and told reporters outside, “They don’t want the Dream Act.”

Obviously, these illegal aliens have never read the book How To Win Friends And Influence People, a pure classic. And you have to wonder what Pelosi is truly thinking, the things she won’t say publicly, about this incident. It certainly can’t help with the push for amnesty. But, hey, Pelosi just learned a valuable lesson about giving people an inch and watching them take a mile, eh?

Read: Nancy Pelosi Gets Shutdown By Angry DACA Recipients »

College Snowflakes Are OK With Physical Violence To Shut Down Free Speech

All these college students are in for a very rude awakening when they finally graduate (with tens of thousands in student loans debt) and attempt to enter the work force. Here’s the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell discussing a new study

A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.

Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

And, what they consider “offensive and hurtful statements” is essentially everything that doesn’t conform to their narrow worldview. No need for a long discussion on this, we’ve seen it playing out on the news and blogs and such, we understand how it works. The study check on 1,500 college students

Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.

I wonder why they would misunderstand? Could it be they have been taught incorrectly by their leftist parents, leftist k-12 teachers, and now at college?

For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.

If you look at the response for this, it’s not just Democrats who fail: 39% of Republicans and 44% of Independents say that “hate speech” is not protected, as compared to 41% of Democrats. Overall, just 39% say that speech-they-don’t-like is protected, 44% say not protected, and 16% do not know. This is pathetic.

Students were asked whether the First Amendment requires that an offensive speaker at a public university be matched with one with an opposing view. Here, 6 in 10 (mistakenly) said that, yes, the First Amendment requires balance.

Should we be blaming the children, and, yes, with their attitudes, they are children, or blaming the school systems?

The most chilling findings, however, involved how students think repugnant speech should be dealt with.

Villasenor offered a hypothetical that may sound familiar to those who recall recent fracases at California State University at Los Angeles, Middlebury College , Claremont McKenna College and other institutions:

Let’s say a public university hosts a “very controversial speaker,” one “known for making offensive and hurtful statements.” Would it be acceptable for a student group to disrupt the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker”?

Overall, 51% agree. But, a big part of that is Democrats, who agree at 62%. Again, though, sadly, Republicans are at 39% and Independents at 45%.

Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes.

The D/R/I breakdown is 20/22/16 in favor of violence. Shame on Republicans the most.

What’s more, colleges alone are not to blame for these findings. Other data suggest that freshmen are arriving on campus with more intolerant attitudes toward free speech than their predecessors did, and that Americans of all ages have become strikingly hostile toward basic civil and political liberties.

Again, we have to look at the parents and K-12 schools. And this is entering the Real World. It’s not going to go well for them.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: College Snowflakes Are OK With Physical Violence To Shut Down Free Speech »

Pirate's Cove