Warmists Should Take The Guardian’s Call To Have Less Kids

By William Teach July 12, 2017 – 4:03 pm

In fact, perhaps Warmists should have no kids. Do they really want to have a little carbon footprint running around and killing Gaia?

From the article

The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.

So, instead of 10, have 9? It’s rather like the old “turn your AC up a bit/heat down a bit” thing. They never really give us actual numbers.

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found.

Get too it, Warmists! Sell you car! No meat. No drying machines.

The reason they go with the “one fewer child” is that they figure a child is worth 58.6 tonnes of CO2 per year, which seems excessive.

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.

Wait, wait, it gets nuttier

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”

That’s right, they just compared having a child to smoking.

Read: Warmists Should Take The Guardian’s Call To Have Less Kids »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 12, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailing ship, tracking the rising oceans, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on Greenland cooling and Warmists unable to explain.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: 87% Of Americans Are Unfamiliar With The Warmist Consensus

By William Teach July 12, 2017 – 10:30 am

Remember the days when you went to the Weather Channel for, get this, weather? Now you go for Progressive propoganda

87 Percent of Americans Unaware There’s Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Nearly 90 percent of Americans are unaware that there is a consensus within the scientific community that human-caused climate change is real and threatens the planet, a new report says.

According to the report published last week by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, only 13 percent of Americans were able to correctly identify that more than 90 percent of all climate scientists have concluded that climate change is real.

The annual survey of 1,266 adults compiled in May and June failed to note that it is actually 97 percent of climate scientists that concur that human-caused global warming is happening.

If you’re thinking that they’re referring to the utterly debunked and discredited Cook et all “study”, you’d be correct. Look at this graphic

It is utterly silly in that the question is asking if they know what scientists are thinking. Really, humans do affect the climate. They question is “how much”? The Cook survey determined that, when the papers actually took a view, was 50% or less among most. And, get this, from the report from Yale

Only one in three Americans (33%) discuss global warming with family and friends “often” or “occasionally,” while most say they “rarely” or “never” discuss it (67%). Additionally, fewer than half of Americans (43%) hear about global warming in the media at least once a month, and only one in five (19%) hear people they know talk about global warming at least once a month.

25+ years of spreading awareness and this is the best they can do? Even with all the fear-mongering from the media, which is almost fully under control of Cult of Climastrology members? With TV programs, constant world-wide meetings, indoctrination in schools, programs at museums and aquariums, etc and so on? Warmists should get their money back from the advertising agency. They aren’t doing a good job.

Oh, and consensus is not science. It’s politics.

Read: Bummer: 87% Of Americans Are Unfamiliar With The Warmist Consensus »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Immigration Crackdown Sees Unlawfully Present Europeans Deported In Greater Numbers

By William Teach July 12, 2017 – 7:15 am

One of the things that isn’t discussed that much is that the illegal aliens present in the United States aren’t comprised just of Mexicans and from Central America. They are from all over the world. And they don’t all sneak across the border. They overstay their visas. And many are from Europe

(KCRA) Europeans often hid in plain sight as Latin Americans, Asians and others living illegally in America were sent packing. But now they’re starting to realize they are not immune to President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, and they’re worried.

The number of Europeans deported this federal fiscal year from the United States could surpass last fiscal year’s total, according to figures provided to The Associated Press by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

From Oct. 2, 2016 through June 24, more than 1,300 Europeans have been removed, compared with 1,450 during all of federal fiscal year 2016 — the last under President Barack Obama. The agency didn’t provide estimates broken down by calendar year.

In San Jose, California, an HIV-positive Russian asylum seeker faces possible deportation after overstaying his visa. In Chicago, Polish and Irish community groups say they’re seeing inquiries about immigration and citizenship-related services surge as people seek legal protections.

And in Boston, John Cunningham, a well-known Irishman who had overstayed his visa by 14 years, was sent back to Ireland last week, sending shivers through the city’s sizeable Irish expat community.

“People are very, very concerned and lying low,” says Ronnie Millar, of the Boston-based Irish International Immigrant Center. “The message is that if it can happen to John, it can happen to anyone.”

If they’re unlawfully present, they need to be deported. And they should be afraid. It doesn’t matter where they are from.

Many believe Cunningham simply forgot the golden rule of living in the shadows: Keep your head down.

Months before his arrest, he appeared on a national news show in Ireland to share his experience of living illegally in America.

Not a bright idea in retrospect, eh?

Many of those living here illegally were lulled into a “false sense of security” by the Obama years, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors more restrictive immigration policies.

“This is a return to more traditional immigration enforcement,” Vaughan said. “There needs to be some level of across-the-board, routine enforcement, in the same way your local police department doesn’t focus only on murder, robbery and rape. They also have traffic patrols.”

It’s a simple concept: if you’re unlawfully present in the United States, you get deported if caught.

But Ali Noorani, executive director of the immigrant-rights group National Immigration Forum, argued the administration is overdoing it.

“It’s pretty clear ICE is removing anyone undocumented they come across,” he said. “The bigger issue is that the Trump administration is wasting really valuable law enforcement resources on many people who aren’t a public safety threat, whether they’re Irish, Latino, Asian or otherwise.”

It’s always some excuse with these people to excuse and protect illegal aliens. Is it a waste of resources for police officers to pull someone over for failing to use their signal, tailgating, and having a broken taillight? No. They’ll probably just give you a warning for the latter, because it’s about safety for you and other people. Is it a waste of resources if law enforcement is playing basketball with neighborhood kids rather than patrolling? No. They’re creating a bond in the neighborhood, showing kids that they are not big bad scary people. Likewise, if ICE becomes aware of any illegal alien, it is not a waste of their resources to come get them. Because they are unlawfully present.

If someone is sitting in Ali Noorani’s backyard, not doing anything wrong, just chilling, no threats, no bad words, but refusing to leave, is it a waste of resources to have the police come and remove the person? According to Noorani’s talking point, yes. I bet Ali would feel different in the real world, because the person would be trespassing. Just like illegal aliens are doing.

Read: Immigration Crackdown Sees Unlawfully Present Europeans Deported In Greater Numbers »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Immigration Crackdown Sees Unlawfully Present Europeans Deported In Greater Numbers | Trackback URL

Who’s More At Fault? Hillary Or Don Jr?

By William Teach July 12, 2017 – 6:56 am

The story so far, as provided by Kayleigh McEnany at The Hill

OPINION | Forget Don Jr.’s email — it’s Hillary Clinton who ‘colluded’ with Russia

The effort to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government has proven to be little more than a conspiracy theory desperately in search of evidence.  With only “rumors… newspapers stories… (but) not necessarily evidence” in the recent words of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (Calif), the left has tried to take down President Donald Trump and ignore the issues the American people care about.

The recent New York Times stories aimed at Donald Trump Jr. are the latest attempt to provide evidence of collusion where none exists. The Times reported Monday that Trump Jr. accepted a meeting with a Russian lawyer after being told that she might provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton that was part of a Russian government effort to aid Trump.

This micro story about a Trump Jr. meeting with a purported Kremlin-related attorney has been opportunistically harnessed by some to prove a broader, evidence-free, macro story of Trump campaign collusion with Russians in hacking the DNC and releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails to the public.  But the micro fails to prove the macro, though the left breathlessly alleges it does.

The article continues on in this vein for a bit, explaining what is going on, what happened, the emails and such. One thing missing is that politics is a dirty, nasty, roll in the mud business. It always has been, always will be. Remember Hillary attempting to do research on Obama all the way back to his kindergarten days? That’s just one example. The media did most of the work for the Obama campaign against McCain and Romney, and Hillary against Trump. But, then, we jump to this

Again, in a move of full transparency, Trump Jr. publicly released the entire email chain on Twitter.  The initial email states that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered to provide the Trump campaign with “information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.”

In other words, the information Trump Jr. initially expressed interest in receiving was not hacked emails or illegally obtained documents but apparently information about Clinton’s official Secretary of State dealings with Russia.  At the time the information was offered on June 3, 2016, there was no information suggesting Russian hackers were responsible for the hacking of the DNC.  Donald Trump Jr., in other words, had no reason to believe that the information he sought was little more than opposition research.

Why would they not want to at least hear them out? The media goes and talks to all sorts of people to gather information all the time. They talk to illegal aliens. They talk to criminals. If someone brings them information, they’re willing to listen.

Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia.  Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia.  Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company.  Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction.

Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch.

Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions?

Why would any political campaign not be willing to at least listen?

Trump Jr.’s interest in attaining opposition research is nothing new.  Where was the outrage when “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump,” according to Politico?  It was non-existent because Clinton is a darling of the media, where the left and the right are held to different standards.

Good point.

No criminality has been proven, nor will it. Where was the outrage when a British spy was providing a completely false report on Donald Trump regarding hookers peeing on a bed to media outlets and the DNC? Are some foreign sources OK and others aren’t? People need to toughen up if they’re going to play in politics. This is the reason I’ve mostly ignored the whole Russia thing. Because it’s people freaking out about nothing by normal politics.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Who’s More At Fault? Hillary Or Don Jr? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Politics | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Not Alarmed Enough About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach July 11, 2017 – 4:24 pm

The fallout from the scaremongering NY Magazine article on the Earth soon being to hot to support human life continues. Some, like Grist (which usually does a good job with the fear mongering) says the story was too much fearmongering (even though they do some themselves)

The worst-case climate scenario is very bad indeed. The thing is, even the worst-case scenario is not nearly as bad as Wallace-Wells portrays. (snip)

The problem is, if you’re trying to motivate people, scaring the shit out of them is a really bad strategy.

It’s what the Cult of Climastrology has relied on for decades, and has gotten significantly worse with the rise of all the media outlets.

Kevin Drum isn’t so sure that climate change is all that scary, nor is he sure that scary the bejusus out of people is a good idea. What he does think is a good idea

Pour massive amounts of public money into energy R&D and infrastructure buildout.

Um, surprise? Why don’t Warmists ever want to use their own money? They always want to take it from others. Though, in all fairness, I’d rather use what we do spend on R&D first, make sure it works.

There are plenty more opinions from Warmists, but, here’s the topper from Slate’s Susan Matthews

Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change
New York magazine’s global-warming horror story isn’t too scary. It’s not scary enough.

New York’s David Wallace-Wells has a formidable cover story in the magazine this week, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” that dryly details just how bad things could get due to climate change. The answer? Very, very bad. The timeline? Sooner than you think. The instantly viral piece might be the Silent Spring of our time, except it doesn’t uncover shocking new information—it just collects all the terrifying things that were already sitting out there into one extremely terrifying list.

I would have skipped past the 1st paragraph except for one thing: the mention of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. It was based on junk science, and proved deadly. The ‘climate change’ movement is likewise based on junk science, and we’ll see if implementing it turns deadly. It has for birds, so far.

“No matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough,” Wallace-Wells writes, before running through the known science and stats that explain why rising seas, the focus of most of our climate panic, are just the tip of the iceberg—disease, famine, economic panic, and civil unrest are coming, too. An argument for freaking out, his piece has been decried for being too alarmist. Actually, it is not alarmist enough. As I read it in bed at midnight Sunday night, for the first time I started to realize just exactly why climate change might be a reason not to have children—because if those children have children, this could be their world. That’s how close to the edge we are.

Doomed!

I understand the desire to steer away from hopelessness, doom, and despair, which Mann posits to be antithetical to rational and bold action. Climate change is a uniquely difficult problem specifically because addressing it requires humans to be selflessly interested in the long term, which is neither natural nor easy. But, contrary to the belief perpetuated by a lot of the criticism of this piece, addressing climate change does not rely on people being psychologically self-possessed enough to freely give up meat and airplane rides for the greater good. There is no amount of individual good intention that can solve this massive, structural problem in enough time to have an impact. What we need is leaders who will take this problem seriously. We need it yesterday. And the right way to get there is to tell people the truth about the future and implore them to vote for and insist on a better one.

So, forced compliance via Big Government? Shocking! Then we get some whines about income inequality, Donald Trump, the elites, ending with

We don’t need to guard against alarmism, against depression, against anger, against despair when it comes to climate change. Sure, the hopelessness that accompanies pondering our fate might depress people out of recycling their water bottles or switching their light bulbs. That doesn’t matter. If it also scares people into actually taking this issue seriously at the ballot box, the trade-off will be well worth it. Because the ballot box is where it matters. If we force the issue—if we elect people who care about the survival of all humans rather than just a few—then we might have a shot of preventing the hellscape Wallace-Wells has outlined.

If you don’t want that outcome, we need to start by being more alarmed.

This hasn’t worked for 25+ years, and it will certainly turn more people off. Really, as stated so many times, ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last in polls on the issues that people care about. It’s low hanging fruit. And, as Instapundit likes to write “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.” In other words, practice what they preach.

It is interesting how this all comes back to political power and money, isn’t it?

Read: We’re Not Alarmed Enough About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 11, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Vulgar Curmudgeon, with a post on China saying North Korea is not their responsibility.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Turkey Reconsiders Paris Climate Agreement

By William Teach July 11, 2017 – 10:24 am

Why? They want all that sweet, sweet, climate cash redistributed from rich nations (via The Last Refuge)

(Reuters)  The U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement means Turkey is less inclined to ratify the deal because the U.S. move jeopardizes compensation promised to developing countries, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday.

Erdogan was speaking at the G20 summit in Germany where leaders from the world’s leading economies broke with U.S. President Donald Trump over climate policy, following his announcement last month that he was withdrawing from the accord.

Erdogan said that when Turkey signed the accord France had promised that Turkey would be eligible for compensation for some of the financial costs of compliance.

“So we said if this would happen, the agreement would pass through parliament. But otherwise it won’t pass,” Erdogan told a news conference, adding that parliament had not yet approved it.

“Therefore, after this step taken by the United States, our position steers a course towards not passing this from the parliament,” he said.

It’s doubtful that this will cause any sort of domino effect, as there are still plenty of 1st World Nations which are staying in the Paris agreement who will give their own taxpayer money to 3rd world nations, rather than using it for their own citizens. And 3rd world and smaller nations certainly want lost of that sweet, sweet climate cash.

Read: Turkey Reconsiders Paris Climate Agreement »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Is Giving Revised Health Plan A Whirl This Week

By William Teach July 11, 2017 – 7:38 am

It’s not repeal. It’s not replace. It’s dink and dunk, making a few changes. What will the revised plan look like?

(The Hill) Senate Republican leaders are moving forward this week on legislation to repeal and replace major parts of ObamaCare despite divisions within their conference.

Leaders will brief rank-and-file Republican senators Tuesday during their weekly lunch on the revisions they have made to the legislation in an effort to bridge the gap between moderates and conservatives.

They expect to make the revised bill public later in the week and get a score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before bringing it to the floor for a vote. (big snip)

GOP leaders have tried to woo both sides of their conference by promising $45 billion for opioid treatment, a high priority for moderates such as Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and by looking at new regulatory reforms to entice conservative such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

They have also discussed adding tens of billions of dollars to a $62 billion long-term state innovation fund that is designed to help low-income people with high healthcare costs afford insurance.

Let’s be honest: the plan stinks, and all they’re doing is throwing money out there to woo Republicans to support it. If this is what they want to do, they might as well just fix the structural issues with Obamacare.

But those changes might not be enough to save the bill, given how little room they have for error.

One prominent moderate, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), told CNN, “I do need a complete overhaul to get to a yes.”

I agree, as do most people who’ve been voting for Republicans, and gave them back control of the House, then the Senate, then the White House: scrap this garbage plan, go back to the drawing board, fully repeal Obamacare, and replace it with a workable solution that will

  • Make it easier for people to get affordable insurance
  • Give people and their doctors control over their health decisions, not the government
  • Let people choose their level of coverage and what is covered
  • Cross border coverage
  • Keep the government out of decisions of what insurance plans must cover. Let the people choose what works best for them
  • And so much more

Any plan should include a few of the things stuck in Ocare to make it popular, like allowing children to stay on their parents insurance till 26 (puts more young healthies in the pools), insurance companies not being allowed to drop users for, get this, using the insurance they pay for, and a few others. You can even have a mandate, but, it would need to include some provisions so that people who lose their plans because they changed jobs aren’t penalized.

That said, the GOP leaders will still keep pushing this stupid bill.

Read: Senate Is Giving Revised Health Plan A Whirl This Week »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Twitter Is A Hotbed Of Inequality and White Male Privilege Or Something

By William Teach July 11, 2017 – 7:22 am

Yet another in a long line of 1st World Problems, namely, there are too many white males on Twitter, which totally means there is an inequality in society

(Daily Caller) The MIT Technology Review is pushing a study that claims Twitter has a white male problem, and that it’s keeping women and ethnic minorities down with what it calls a “glass ceiling.”

In a newly published article, the MIT Technology Review claims that social media plays an important role in “reversing inequality of various kinds.” Fair play to sites like Twitter and Facebook for bridging the class gap by enabling people to openly communicate to each other, but the study claims that a preexisting inequality exists, which works against efforts to end inequality.

The did a ton of research, looking at hundreds of millions of tweets and 50 million users over a 3 month time period, looking a race and sex using an algorithm that detects those from the faces of the user photos (what of those who use something different?), and have determined that 57% of users are males, 43% female (which will probably set the snowflakes off in rants about some being transgender and sexless). 68% are white. Which means

Messias and his group say that of the top percentile of Twitter users with the most followers they collected, 57 percent of them were men and 43 percent were women. The 15 percent swing represents the inequality in society, which they claim exists. “The results reflect the general idea that higher positions are usually taken by males,” Messias said.

White users also come out on top with the most followers “who are overrepresented by 20 percent,” according to the research, which the MIT article claims is evidence of white privilege. White females are similarly overrepresented by 3 percent. The study claims that the most underprivileged groups are Asian and black females, who are underrepresented by 31 percent.

Must be all those white males stopping people from joining Twitter and disallowing minorities from getting as many followers. There’s actually an extra button that white males can press. Whoops, should not have let that secret out.

Messias says that his group traced the way genders and races link to each other and found that people of the same race tend to follow each other more often than they follow people outside their groups. It’s an effect called “homophily.”

The article claims: “But the magnitudes of this effect are interesting. White people tend to follow more white people than expected by a margin of 16 percent. Black people tend to follow more black people than expected by a very significant margin of over 200 percent.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Let’s get real. People can voluntarily join Twitter. No one is stopping them. They can follow whomever they want. That’s up to them. I fail to see the problem with the demographics, but, then, I do not live in a state of perpetual Grievance.

BTW, the article notes that the facial recognition software doesn’t always get the race correct. It determined that an Asian female was white. But, it also said that Shaun King is white. Um, he is.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Twitter Is A Hotbed Of Inequality and White Male Privilege Or Something »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove